Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:

Whereupon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Official Car Service

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Supply how many cars of the official car service visited South Hammersmith during the period of the by-election; and how many visits were on repayment journeys.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Two, both on repayment.

Mr. George Wigg: Can my right hon. Friend say how many cars were used by the Leader of the Opposition and how much expense was incurred during the 1945 General Election?

Mr. Strauss: Not without notice.

Motor Cars (Home Market)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of difficulties now being experienced by the motor industry as a result of certain foreign countries restricting, for currency reasons, the import of motor cars, he will temporarily reduce the export quota and allow orders for the home market to be fulfilled, thus enabling full employment to be maintained in the industry.

Mr.G.R. Strauss: This matter is being considered in the light of representation made to me by the National Advisory Council for the motor manufacturing industry.

Mr. Edelman: In the course of the discussions, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unless the flow of production is maintained the cost of cars will rise, and damage will be done to the industry both in the home and export markets?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Surely in view of the circumstances of the motor car industry at the moment, and the restrictions imposed upon it in foreign markets, the Minister will give a slightly greater release of cars to the home market at the present time?

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate the points which have been put to me, but we have to be careful how much of our export production is devoted to home purposes instead of being sent abroad.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to extend his investigation beyond the scope of the motor car industry, as this is a problem which is beginning to affect other branches of light engineering?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

New House of Commons (Oak Panels)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Works if he will provide for the inspection of Members two or three panels of oak similar to that which it is suggested shall be used in the new Chamber, which were treated five or ten years ago with the same grey stain now proposed to be used in the House.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): There are no panels of oak which were treated five to ten years ago with the grey stain now proposed to be used in the House. Samples of oak recently treated have already been exhibited but I will arrange with the authorities concerned for them to be shown again. I am assured by experts that no appreciable change of colour is to be expected other than that which would be normal to the wood.

Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister aware that treatment similar to this was applied many years ago, that the oak today looks entirely different and cannot be cleaned, and that it becomes spotted if that is attempted? We do not want to make the Chamber look like a Hollywood cathedral.

Mr. Key: The scientists who have been dealing with this matter assure me that that will not take place with this particular oak.

Council Hall, Caister-on-Sea

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the parish council of Caister-on-Sea, Norfolk, have been endeavouring for two years to reconstruct the platiform and stage of the council hall, which is the only large building available for public meetings, entertainments and other communal activities in this parish of 4,000 inhabitants; that, meanwhile, a temporary platform has had to be constructed of fish boxes; that the state of the building is discouraging to local civic activity; and if he will now give further consideration to the granting of the necessary licence.

Mr. Key: This application was originally refused because of the quantity of softwood required. My licensing officer suggested the use of hardwood, which is less scarce, for part of the work. This has been accepted and a licence has now been issued.

Middleton Hall

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the acute housing shortage in the Morecambe and Lancaster district and of the fact that the house in question is no longer required by the Minister of Supply, he will de-requisition Middleton Hall, Middleton, Lancashire.

Mr. Key: Middleton Hall is not held on requisition but is Crown freehold. The question of its future use, including the possibility of using it for housing, is now being considered.

Kington Camp

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the release by the War Office of the Kington Camp,

Herefordshire, he will now release a portion of this camp for the relief of the housing shortage in the district.

Mr. Key: I am consulting the Ministry of Health and other Government Departments so that the future use of the camp can be settled as soon as possible.

Mr. Baldwin: When are the various Ministries going to make up their minds what they want to do with this camp? Squatters are already taking possession of some of it, and if the right hon. Gentleman does not make a quick decision they will take possession of the lot.

Mr. Key: This camp has only recently been declared by the Department concerned to be redundant. I am asking the Ministry of Health and other Departments concerned to let me have a quick reply.

Finsbury Park

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the large area still held under requisition by different Government Departments in Finsbury Park; and if, in view of the shortage of open spaces in North London, he will take steps to restore this part to its former condition.

Mr. Key: I understand that only the War Department holds land under requisition in Finsbury Park, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will deal with this matter in reply to the further Question which has been placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member.

Frensham Little Pond

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Minister of Works whether he will take early steps to secure the restoration of Frensham Little Pond to its pre-war condition.

Mr. Key: The owner's proposals are now being considered in detail. It is hoped to give him authority very shortly to put the necessary works in hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Local Defence Units

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what military training it is proposed shall


be undertaken by Control Commission civilian personnel recruited into the armed local defence units about to be set up in the British zone of Germany;
(2) why there is being set up in Germany a force of armed local defence units composed of Control Commission civilian personnel; whether he is aware of the widespread feeling that the force is in fact intended to be a strike-breaking organisation in the event of political or industrial unrest in the British zone; and whether he will give orders for the scheme to be abandoned forthwith.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): Proposals are under consideration to organise British civilian members of the Control Commission for the temporary protection of British lives and premises in the event of civil disturbance until the Armed Forces of Occupation can take over. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to order the abandonment of this commonsense security precaution. The duties involved would be of a static nature, small arms only would be carried and training would be confined to the use of such weapons. There is no question of the volunteers being used for strike breaking and my right hon. Friend wishes to take this opportunity of dispelling ill-founded beliefs and maliciously circulated rumours which may exist to this effect.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As what was suggested to be a rumour has been stated most openly as being the fear of the Staff Side of the Whitley Council for the C.C.G., would my right hon. Friend like to reconsider his description of it; and as this whole policy contemplates the breakdown of sensible relationships between the German people and the Western zone and the occupying Forces, would it not be better to give up this business of trying to divide Germany, which is bound to lead to breakdown?

Mr. McNeil: This does not contemplate the breakdown of these relationships, and if it is left to the British Occupation Forces and the German people, such a breakdown will not occur. This is an ordinary security precaution which ought to be taken against a contingency which none of us believe will arise.

Mr. John Hynd: Is it not the case that these voluntary units have been in operation for at least two years and that there has never been any question of their being used for strike breaking?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is Moscow afraid of this force?

British Relations Board

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Relations Board in the British zone of Germany will receive the full support of His Majesty's Government in the development of cultural relations between Great Britain and Germany; and if reports on its activities will he presented to the House.

Mr. McNeil: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." The activities of the British Relations Board will be covered in the Monthly Report on the work of the Control Commission for Germany which is placed in the Library of the House of Commons

Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman make use of the British Council in the development of these relations in Germany? Is the Commanderin-Chief in the British zone in touch with the British Council in that zone?

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about that.

Berlin

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper the proposals submitted by His Majesty's Government to the Committee of Experts of the Security Council of the United Nations on the Berlin Dispute.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. While the United Kingdom expert, like the other experts, explained his point of view to the Committee, he did not submit proposals to it.

Mr. Swingler: Would the Minister of State elaborate his view about the publication of the report of the Committee, and would he care to correct the impression which he gave last week that the Government are against the publication of the report of this Committee, which was completed a month ago?

Mr. McNeil: If I gave a wrong impression about the attitude of the Government in relation to the report itself, I would gladly correct it. We are in consultation with other Governments affected, and, subject to what may be said in the course of these consultations, our inclination is rather in favour of publication. That, of course, is a decision for the President of the Security Council, but the report of the observations of the representative of this Government is quite a different matter. In relation to the full report, however, subject to the views of the other interested Governments, we are rather inclined, if our opinion is sought, towards recommending that the President of the Security Council should publish it.

PALESTINE (HOLY PLACES)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct inquiry to be made through the United Nations organisation on the present conditions of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and at Nazareth and Bethlehem and convey the result to the House.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's ConsulGeneral at Jerusalem has been instructed to ask the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine for a report.

Sir P. Hannon: When does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that he will get that report, and will he do all that he can to accelerate its presentation?

Mr. McNeil: Most certainly, but of course the Commission has other work than this, although I agree that this is work of great importance.

HUNGARY AND BULGARIA (TRIALS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that recent trials in Hungary and Bulgaria have been characterised by the starving of prisoners and the administering to them of drugs, especially acreton, he will instruct His Majesty's Government's representative at the United Nations to propose a resolution to condemn these practices.

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Member has concrete evidence to support the allegations he makes and will supply me with it, my right hon. Friend will consider whether action is possible.

Sir W. Smithers: In any case, will the Government give an undertaking that they will do all in their power to expose and to prevent the further use of these diabolical Communist methods?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, I do not want to appear unsympathetic. Our disapproval of these methods has already been displayed, but we have no concrete evidence relating to this accusation. It may be true, but we have no evidence.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: In view of the widespread disgust with the treatment meted out to the cardinal in question and to the Protestant pastors in Bulgaria, and in view of it having been admitted to be in conflict with the Charter of Human Rights, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring any pressure to bear or to apply any sanctions in connection with the Governments of the countries concerned?

Mr. McNeil: The question of sanctions is quite a different matter which I am sure I shall not be expected to answer off-hand. It is rather loose, in relation to the first part of the Question, to talk about the Charter of Human Rights. There is a Declaration. It is the anxiety of His Majesty's Government that there should be a convenant upon that subject, but there is not yet such an instrument.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I draw your attention to the wording of this Question which has evidently passed the Clerk at the Table? Normally when one wants to put a Question, if there is any point which appears to be without evidence, the Clerk asks the Member concerned to support it or to declare that he is able to support it. Very often Questions of mine, and I have no doubt Questions of other hon. Members, have been refused because they have been based only on newspaper reports. In this case, may I ask for your Ruling as to how it was that the Clerk at the Table was able to accept this Question from the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) in view of the fact that there is no evidence whatever for these statements,


As the Minister of State himself has just admitted?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the House knows, the hon. Member putting a Question takes responsibility for the statements included therein. It is generally no part of thé duties of the Table to decide whether or not those statements are true. That is the responsibility of the hon. Member.

Mr. Benn Levy: In that case, are we to take it that in future, when hon. Members have their Questions, or proposed Questions, refused at the Table on the grounds of factual ambiguity, we may cite this instance and say that we are prepared to take responsibility?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I can take the responsibility of giving the hon. Member general guidance to that extent.

Mr. Piratin: May I take it that Questions submitted by me which have been refused on this ground as recently as last week may now be submitted once again to the Table, and that I may have hopes that they will get on to the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Obviously each Question must be decided on its merits. I cannot give a general Ruling on that point.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can we take it, after your Ruling, that the Rule is now perfectly clear that a Question will not be refused by Mr. Speaker where the Member who seeks to put it down undertakes to accept responsibility for the facts contained in it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As I have said, I cannot give a general Ruling. There are cases where it is obvious that because the facts are not clear, or for other good reasons, the Table may think it right to refuse to admit a Question.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report he has now received of the trial in Bulgaria of the 15 Protestant pastors; and whether he is satisfied that the provisions of Article 2 of the Peace Treaty have been observed.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has received many reports of the proceedings,

which have been closely followed by His Majesty's Legation in Sofia. These reports show that most of the witnesses for the prosecution were themselves persons already under arrest, and that their testimony dealt largely with the pastors' association with the former opposition parties. In democratic countries this is not, of course, a crime. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is not the slightest foundation for any of the allegations made concerning past or present members of the Legation staff.
As regards the second part of the Question, it is not possible to say whether or not the provisions of Article 2 of the Peace Treaty have been observed, until the trial ends.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the secret instructions to the Communist Party, which have now been published in this country, is it not clear that these so-called trials are part of a deliberate campaign of persecution of this small evangelical minority in Bulgaria on religious grounds, and will the Minister take all steps, whether by protest or otherwise, that are open to him under the Peace Treaty?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, the falsity of part of the confessions must lead everyone to doubt the rest of the confessions, and there are, surely, strong grounds for believing that these trials, not only in that country but in comparable countries, are part of a propaganda campaign rather than a judicial process. His Majesty's Government will continue to see that such rights as we have are observed in relation to these trials.

BURMA (NEW DELHI MEETING)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the conference at New Delhi to discuss the situation in Burma.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement with regard to the Commonwealth Conference recently held in New Delhi to discuss the Burmese situation; and if he will state what decisions were taken to help the Burmese Government.

Mr. McNeil: As the reply is necessarily long, I propose, with permission, to circulate it in HANSARD.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in view of the fact that we have been told by the Government of Burma that our good offices apparently are not required, no further loans will be given to Burma?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I could not give that assurance off-hand.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Commonwealth the possibility of giving loans to the Burmese Government to rehabilitate the country so that we can feed South-East Asia and limit the disturbances arising from food shortages there?

Mr. McNeil: As my hon. Friend knows, this was one of the subjects discussed at Delhi, and consideration of the same subject will be continued with the Commonwealth Governments affected and interested.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a fact that, as part of the Treaty, Burma has already received large loans, and is there not a point where it may become unwise to throw good money after bad?

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the right hon. Gentleman take cognizance of the fact that, whilst the administration of Burma is a matter for the Government of Burma, the reactions throughout the whole of the Middle East of any failure of that Government may be of incomparable consequence to other populations owing to the closure of this great reservoir of food of which these people are in great need?

Mr. McNeil: That is one of the main points in the anxiety of the Government and one of the main considerations forwarded at the Delhi informal conversations.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman read his answer after Questions instead of merely having it printed in HANSARD, because this is a matter of urgent importance?

Mr. McNeil: I would have no objection at all. However, it is a subject upon which I should like guidance from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be that we shall finish Questions early and that there will be time for that to be done by agreement.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Gammans: Would you grant permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the Minister of State to answer verbally Question 19, in view of its importance?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Is that the wish of the House? If there is any objection it cannot be done. Is there any objection?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then it cannot be done.
Following is the reply:
During January the Burmese Government made a request to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for financial assistance principally in order to meet the anticipated budget deficit for the year 1948–49 and to finance the purchase of the rice crop.
His Majesty's Government considered that the situation concerned other Commonwealth Governments with interests and responsibilities in South-East Asia and accordingly consulted the Governments of Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and Ceylon with a view to joint discussions, to which the Government of Burma raised no objection. It proved possible to hold an informal meeting at New Delhi on 28th February at the invitation of the Prime Minister of India: my hon. Friend, the Secretary for Overseas Trade, represented the United Kingdom, and representatives of Australia, India and Ceylon were present. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Commissioner-General in Singapore, also attended.
The meeting unanimously agreed that the surest and quickest way of restoring prosperity in Burma was to end the present communal strife through conciliation. Pandit Nehru, as the Chairman of the meeting, accordingly sent a message in these terms to Thakin Nu, Burmese Prime Minister, to which, I regret to state, the Burmese Government have returned a negative reply.
I should like to emphasise that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, like the other Commonwealth Governments concerned, are animated by a spirit of friendship towards the new Burma and a desire to assist in maintaining her unity and integrity.

ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH EMPLOYEES)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to attempts that have been made by the Argentine Government to force British personnel employed on the Argentine railways to give up employment guaranteed to them under the terms of the agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government; and what representations he has made to ensure that the Clauses of the sales agreement relating to the employment of British personnel are properly carried out.

Mr. McNeil: I am not aware of any instance in which a British employee of the Argentine railways has been forced out of employment. On the other hand, the provisions relating to the employees, as set out in the agreement of sale concluded between the former British-owned railways and the Argentine authorities, have not been fulfilled. My right hon. Friend took this subject up with Dr. Bramuglia during his visit to London in November, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires has since made representations to the Argentine Government upon this subject.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not part of the agreement that the employment and pensions rights of the European employees of these railways were guaranteed under the agreement, and what steps have been taken to see that the agreement is carried out?

Mr. McNeil: It is true that the agreement covered pensions rights and their positions, but I am unaware that their pension rights have been threatened or jeopardised. I want to make it plain that we have no knowledge of dismissals, though it is true that men have been shifted from responsible posts in a fashion which does not seem to us to be consistent with the agreement.

EASTERN EUROPE (BRITISH BROADCASTS)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will in future arrange for his Department to limit the material supplied to the British Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of broadcasts to the countries of Eastern Europe to information dealing only with current affairs in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to Clause (5) of the Licence and Agreement of 29th November, 1946, between His Majesty's Postmaster - General and the British Broadcasting Corporation. This clause provides that the British Broadcasting Corporation shall obtain and accept from Government Departments such information regarding conditions in and the policies of His Majesty's Government towards the countries to which broadcasts are addressed as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare its programmes in the national interest.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As there are so many things that are happening in Britain of which the Government are proud but which need explaining in Europe, such as frozen wages, profits reaching an all-time high, nationalisation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into a catalogue of that sort, but should ask a question.

Mr. Plaits-Mills: May I limit the catalogue and finish the question by asking whether it is not most desirable that we should limit ourselves to an explanation of what is happening in our own country, which, no doubt, many people in Europe would like to hear?

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. Where the British Broadcasting Corporation is prevented from obtaining the facts about areas to which it broadcasts, it is not only provided for in the Charter but is also essential that the Government should give them such help as they can.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Would it not save a great many Questions and a great waste of time if the Minister could give a comprehensive answer to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills) that he will never do anything of which either the British Communist Party or Moscow would disapprove?

JAPANESE TRADE MISSION (CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Japanese trade delegation to South America has gone there on the instructions of General MacArthur or of the Far Eastern Commission; and whether the British delegate approved or was consulted.

Mr. McNeil: I understand that although General MacArthur is considering sending a trade mission to Central and South America no final decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Teeling: Can the right hen. Gentleman give us any information about this mission? Is it likely to take part in agreements that may be damaging to the export trade of this country, for instance?

Mr. McNeil: I could not do so, because this is at the planning level so far, although, to be frank, I understand it is contemplated that the mission should survey trade relationships between Japan and the countries of Central and South America.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is the gravest anxiety in Lancashire, not about the development of Japanese trade, because they know they can meet any fair competition, but about the conditions of sale, and, in particular, allowing prices to fall below the level of world prices, which would be unfair competition which Lancashire could not be expected to stand?

Mr. McNeil: The Government are aware of that, and will continue to keep that point of view in mind. Perhaps if my hon. Friend has any detailed information, he would address it to another Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Enforcement Officer, Barking

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food what action he proposes to take in regard to Samuel Groves, food enforcement officer for

Barking, who was rebuked on 23rd February by the chairman of Stratford magistrates for improperly compelling a housewife to disclose the contents of her shopping bag.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on Monday, 28th February.

Sir T. Moore: While the right hon. Lady will no doubt appreciate that I put this Question down before she gave her answer to the previous Question, may I ask her to see that this man's activities in future will not bring him in direct contact with the public, in view of his previous activities?

Dr. Summerskill: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman; they will not.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House where the housewife can be informed what are the duties and privileges of these enforcement officers?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that if the housewife goes to the local food office, she will be able to obtain that information.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in my division the local food officer has been asked to give that information and to address a public meeting on his duties, and has refused?

Tea

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Food what prospects there are of securing more tea from the Dutch East Indies, with a view to the abolition of tea rationing.

Dr. Summerskill: We hope to obtain increased supplies of tea from the Netherlands East Indies this year, but not, I fear, on a scale which will enable us to abolish tea rationing.

Imported Grain (Storage)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that there are at present over 50 aerodromes being used for the storage of imported


grain, he will give an assurance that there will be no further aerodromes used for this purpose, and that every endeavour will be made to reduce the numbers during the present year.

Dr. Summerskill: I can give the assurance asked for in the second, but not in the first, part of the Question.

Mr. De la Bère: I am not quite clear what that means. Could the right hon. Lady be a little more lucid?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at his Question, he will see what the answer means.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps we had better have a meeting afterwards.

Eire Salmon

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food how much fresh salmon has been brought from Eire in the past three months; and what is the average price per pound paid by his Department.

Dr. Summerskill: Thirty-eight tons of fresh salmon were bought from Eire for delivery in the three months ended 26th February, at an average price of 4s. 6½d. per pound.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that this is sold at 6s. 4d. a pound?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Maximum Price Order, he will find that these prices are graduated according to the season. I think the first-hand sale price per pound, from January to June, 1948, was 6s. and then 5s.

Mr. Gammans: Does it mean, then, that the Ministry pockets the difference?

Dr. Summerskill: Sometimes, Sir.

Blood Donors

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food whether he will give an extra food ration periodically to blood donors.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Dr. Comyns) on 22nd September last.

Fishermen, Annan

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food why Annan trawl fishermen

do not receive seamen's ration books in the same way as fishermen from Cumberland ports; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the practice in Dumfriesshire is brought into line with that in Cumberland in this respect.

Dr. Summerskill: I am advised that there are no fishermen who can properly be classified as trawl fishermen operating from Annan: nor have any weekly seamen's ration books been issued to any such fishermen at Cumberland ports.

Mr. Macpherson: Would the right hon. Lady look into this again? According to my information the Annan trawl fishermen fish in exactly the same waters as the Cumberland trawl fishermen and are actually out longer than they are.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member would like the Port Arbitration Committee to look into it, I am prepared to make the necessary arrangements.

Ice Cream (Sugar Allocation)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Food what conditions as to the fat content of ice cream are made when allocations of sugar are made to the manufacturers.

Dr. Summerskill: No such conditions are attached to normal allocations of sugar; but an extra allowance of 15 per cent. is granted to manufacturers who undertake to maintain a minimum fat content of 2½ per cent.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does the right hon. Lady realise what dreadful stuff is now being sold as ice cream and how small is the fat content in a great deal of it?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend knows that I would like to prescribe a standard, but he must realise that the shortage of milk and milk powder makes it impossible for us to prescribe a satisfactory product, and that is why we have hesitated to do it.

Mr. Hastings: Would it not be possible to let the public know when a satisfactory product is being sold and when one is not?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that this is a small advance towards solving the problem.

South African Oranges

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what profit his Department are making from the sale of South African oranges in this country.

Dr. Summerskill: We are not importing any oranges from South Africa at present.

Domestic Preserving (Sugar)

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Minister of Food if he will permit the increased allocation of sugar forthwith so that existing supplies of oranges may be used for marmalade making.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I have already announced the release of seven bonus issues of 1 lb. each for domestic preserving, and regret it is not possible to commence this increased distribution before the four-week period commencing 24th April.

Mr. Nield: Is not the information of the right hon. Lady that there are large stocks of these oranges now available, many of which are being wasted because there is no sugar available, and cannot her Department, not give more sugar, but expedite the allocation of that which is coming?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. There were large stocks, but there is only a small amount left now.

Mr. De la Bère: Why not de-ration sugar altogether?

Bakers (Profit Margin)

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Food what is the bakers' margin of profit for the last convenient year and for 1938; and what is the relative gross turnover for the same two years.

Dr. Summerskill: My Department only has information about the profit margin on bread: we hold the net profit per sack of flour at about the pre-war figure of 5s. But bakers make many other things besides bread, so I am afraid I cannot estimate their gross turnover.

French Pork

Mr. Sidney Marshall: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of pork he expects to import from France this year

Dr. Summerskill: Discussions are to begin soon between officers of my Department and of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries with a French delegation. It is hoped that these talks will result in agreement on health regulations which will make it possible to negotiate for the purchase of pork.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the Minister bear in mind, in regard to the importing of pork, whether at the same time we can get any from East Africa?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Potatoes

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how the monthly consumption of potatoes for human consumption and for stock-feed, respectively, in 1947–48 compared with that of 1946–47 month by month; and what are the corresponding figures to date this year.

Dr. Summerskill: As the reply is a table of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Lady say whether the 1947–48 ration has resulted in a reduced consumption this year and, if so, whether the estimate, which is for a surplus of five million tons, is correct?

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean consumption by humans or by animals?

Major Legge-Bourke: The overall consumption. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the overall consumption will obviously be affected if the human consumption is cut down?

Dr. Summerskill: As I have already explained to the House last year's crop was so great that human consumption, while it has been heavy, has not been sufficient to take up the surplus this crop year. Animal consumption is much higher.

Major Legge-Bourke: And the surplus of five million tons which is estimated is in fact correct?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:


Thousand tons


CalendarMonth
Sales for human consumption in Great Britain 
Sales for stockfeeding (raw and processed) in Great Britain




1946–47
1947–48
From 1.7.48 to 31.1.49
1946–47
1947–48
From 1.7.48 to 31.1.49


July
…
428
423
402
4
5
2


August
…
411
359
376
—
—
24


September
…
587
560
501
2
1
61


October
…
549
661
431
8
—
83


November
…
534
513
467
8
1
89


December
…
563
411
462
4
—
107


January
…
605
387
512*
3
—
148*


February
…
380
459

—
—



March
…
523
416

1
1



April
…
643
374

2
6



May
…
488
296

5
30



June
…
396
343

2
19



Total
…
6,107
5,202
3,151
39
63
514


* Provisional figures.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many factories are now processing potatoes; what is the total weekly output; how many tons of potatoes have so far been processed; how many additional factories will be in operation before this season's crop has been processed; how many weeks processing will be necessary in all; and what is the total tonnage likely to be processed.

Dr. Summerskill: There are 26 processing factories in the United Kingdom which are converting each week approximately 17,000 tons of raw potatoes into 3,500 tons of dried potatoes. Up to 19th February this year 94,000 tons of raw potatoes had been processed into 15,566 tons of dried potato. Two further small drying plants may become available to deal with this season's crop. Processing will continue so long as there are potatoes to be disposed of. I cannot say therefore for how many weeks the factories will be needed. The present estimate is that the total quantity likely to be processed will be about 300,000 tons.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Lady say whether these factories are now working seven days a week or only five?

Dr. Summerskill: They are working seven days a week, to capacity.

Major Legge-Bourke: For how long has that been going on?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would put that Question on the Order Paper.

Dried Bananas

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Food what imports of dried bananas he is now arranging for.

Dr. Summerskill: Arrangements have been made to allow the import under licence of 500 tons of dried bananas from the British Cameroons during the first six months of this year. I am prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to license further supplies, if available, from the British Cameroons or other easy currency areas if the prices asked are reasonable.

Flour Deliveries

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that, in Eastleigh, Hants, a flour restriction scheme is being operated which results in a reduction of 50 per cent. in the supply of bread to retail shops; and whether he will increase the flour allocation to bakers there.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Flour deliveries in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Eastleigh, are in general limited to the quantity delivered in the year ended 26th June, 1948. My inquiries have not revealed that there is any


shortage of bread at Eastleigh, but if my hon. Friend will send me details of any case he has in mind I will be willing to look into it.

Mr. Turton: Has not the time come to do away with the rationing of flour.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. Turton: Why not?

Meat (Illegal Sales)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food to what extent his officers check farmer-dealers' stock sheets; whether they try to trace beasts taken to the grading centre and brought away again; what checks are made on pig clubs, when excessive numbers of pigs are killed, to ascertain if they actually feed all their stock, and on butchers' buying permits, when such permits have increased to a considerable extent over short periods; and how far these efforts have been successful in stopping illegal sales of meat.

Dr. Summerskill: As this Question calls for a very long answer, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

I will answer this Question point by point. First, local authorities are responsible for enforcing and checking the registers which farmers are required to keep under the Ministry of Agriculture's Movement of Animals (Records) Order, 1925, but our officers consult them where necessary. Secondly, inquiries are made about the disposal of animals withdrawn from grading if it is suspected that they are to be sold for slaughter illegally for human consumption. Thirdly, pig clubs are subject to the same regulations about registration and slaughter as other self-suppliers, and the same procedure is followed in both cases to see that the conditions of the scheme are observed. Fourthly, meat authorisations to butchers are completed weekly or on the basis of registrations and other requirements, and are drawn up by our local officers who, with their local knowledge, report any irregularities. Fifthly, I am satisfied that these and the other measures which we take help to curb illegal sales of meat.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Horse Population

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present population of horses and what was it in 1938; and at the same rate of decrease when will horses be extinct in this country.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The total number of horses on agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom in 1948 was 703,000, that in 1938 was 1,101,000. I see little risk of the horse becoming extinct in this country in the foreseeable future. For certain purposes horses have an advantage over mechanical power.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consult with his right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, before she leaves the Chamber, with a view to her Department supplying us with some more stringy Argentine beef, rather than that we should see the horse population continue to be lessened in this way?

Mr. Williams: I should not have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was worried by a lot of horse meat.

Sir T. Moore: Oh, yes; I queue up for it.

Broccoli Seed

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the poor average quality of broccoli produced, he will take steps to improve the quality of the seed available to West of England growers.

Mr. T. Williams: My reports are that the broccoli crop is early but of good quality. As regards the seed, I am aware that there is evidence that the seed of the Roscoff strains deteriorated during the war when the customary arrangements for growing on were impossible. But every effort is being made to restore pre-war standards, though not necessarily by reverting wholly to pre-war arrangements.

Mr. Collins: In his effort to assist in the restoration of pre-war standards, will my right hon. Friend consider supplementing the work of the Gulval experimental station and, if necessary, consider acquiring land for this purpose under Section 83 of the relevant Agriculture Act?

Mr. Williams: The National Agricultural Advisory Service are trying out a number of samples on the experimental plot at Gulval in Cornwall, and we are hopeful that the results will be fruitful.

Mr. Beechman: While agreeing with the Minister that the crop is not only abundant but of splendid quality, and while I also agree that the experiments at Gulval have proved very useful, would he consider what can be done in the Empire, in place like Cyprus, to breed seed, because there is no doubt that there are certain places which are of great advantage both as regards the property of the soil and the climate?

Mr. Williams: I hope that the leading seed firms are aware of the possibilities of Cyprus and, indeed, of any other country, and I hope they will meet the needs of our growers with the right seeds.

Institute, Usk (Students)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many pupils completed the 1947–48 training course at the Agricultural Institute at Usk, Monmouthshire; what records are kept as to their subsequent employment; and how many are engaged in the work of agricultural production.

Mr. T. Williams: One hundred and nine pupils, including 32 trainees under the Vocational Training Scheme, completed the one-year course at the Agricultural Institute, Usk, in 1947–48. The Institute tries to keep records of the subsequent employment of former students, and those records show that, of the 101 students whose present employment is known, 80 are engaged in work of agricultural production.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that other institutes maintain the same record, or attempt to do so, as in the case of the Usk Institute? It is obviously desirable that we should have some trace of what happens to the men who are trained at considerable expense in these institutes.

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in every one of these institutes which I have personally visited I have made a point of putting that to the principal.

Pests Officers

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the total annual cost to the taxpayer of county pest officers, fox control officers, assistant fox control officers and rodent operatives; and what is the approximate number of animals destroyed by them to the latest convenient date.

Mr. T. Williams: The net cost in the year ended 31st March, 1948, of the pests staff in counties, including those on fox control, was approximately £349,000. The number of animals destroyed is unknown. Most of them are killed in their holes

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not obvious to the Minister that this is an awful waste of money when compared with the results? Is he not also aware that if he would give say, Is. per rat's tail, and do away with all these officers, he would get more animals killed at a cheaper price?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must be aware that it would cost infinitely more to dig out foxes and so on, in order to provide statistics, than it costs actually to destroy them.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many vehicles are used by pest and assistant pest officers of county agricultural executive committees, by rodent officers of local authorities and by rodent officers on his headquarters staff, respectively.

Mr. T. Williams: Pests officers and assistant pests officers who do not possess their own vehicles, use where necessary, vehicles supplied to the C.A.E.Cs. for general purposes. I am unable to say how many vehicles are used by these officers in the course of a year. I have no information about, nor responsibility for the vehicles used by officials of local authorities, and there are no rodent officers on my headquarters' staff.

Sir T. Moore: What is an "assistant pest"?

Commander Maitland: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more economical if there were one comprehensive service to deal with these pests instead of having different organisations dealing with the matter?

Mr. Williams: That is just what the prevention of Damage by Pests Bill is trying to do.

Poultry

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what percentage changes in poultry numbers since 1938 have occurred in England and Wales compared with Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if feedingstuffs for poultry are rationed on the same basis in each country.

Mr. T. Williams: The numbers of poultry on agricultural holdings in June, 1948, were eight per cent. lower in England and Wales, 19 per cent. higher in Scotland, and 138 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister bear these figures in mind when he is taking credit for the expansion of the poultry industry?

Mr. Williams: Certainly.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Minister aware that although Northern Ireland has the same rationing as we have, it supplies the entire quota of eggs for Greater London?

Mr. Williams: I am not at all sure about the rations for poultry in Northern Ireland. Any Question on that subject would have to be put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

New Town, Bracknell (Site)

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the acreage of land used for food production included in each of the areas marked 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the map provided by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and displayed in the Library.

Mr. T. Williams: As I have previously informed the hon. Member, the six alternative sites suggested by the National Farmers' Union for a new town in the neighbourhood of Bracknell were not defined. The map referred to was supplied in order to give hon. Members a general picture of the position, but neither the location nor the boundaries of the areas can be taken as more than rough indications of what appears to have been intended by the Union. For example, Area No. 1 was merely described as "on the Crown Lands between Easthampstead, Crowthorne, Bagshot,

and Ascot," while No. 5 was described as "Swinley Forest, south of Ascot." It would be of little use to attempt to obtain precise figures of parts of areas which are themselves so imprecise as this.

Mr. York: Is it not a fact that the Minister was asked to advise on the suitability of the rough areas intimated, and, if that was so, surely it was his duty to have a rough approximation made of the amount of food-producing land in those vicinities?

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what the Ministry gave. They gave the Ministry of Town and Country Planning what guidance they could as to good quality and less good quality agricultural land.

Mr. York: If the Minister was asked for and gave that advice, could he not let the House know what that advice was? There must have been some amount of acreage mentioned?

Mr. Williams: Not on the areas marked 1, 3, 5 and 6, since they are so indefinite.

Poles (Farm Purchase)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture for what reason it is intended to settle 40 Poles on a farm at Conington Fen, Huntingdonshire, at the taxpayers' expense; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. T. Williams: These Poles have not been settled on the farm at Conington Fen at the taxpayers' expense, but have purchased it on their own account.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that there are a great many British workers, including ex-Service men, who are keen to put their savings into smallholdings, and will he bear that in mind before he too readily grants, even at their own expense, the small amount of land available for settlement by Poles?

Mr. Williams: I have already explained that they were not settled on this land at the taxpayers' expense, and I have no power to prevent people from buying or selling land. With regard to the former part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the situation of this land and the poor quality of the soil are such that I would not attempt to place one British skilled agricultural worker upon it.

Mr. Renton: If I gave the right hon. Gentleman the names of British workers who are keen to settle on any land that they can get hold of, would he please reconsider this matter?

Mr. Williams: I have already had the area of land investigated by the county agricultural executive committee, and on their advice, I repeat, I would not place any British skilled agricultural worker on that particular area.

Soil Fertility

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the need to replenish the fertility of the soil in many parts of the country as a result of the exhaustion caused by seven years over-cropping, he will now make a further announcement of how he proposes to restore soil fertility.

Mr. T. Williams: Although certain fields suffered a decline in soil fertility due to over-cropping during the war, the general level of fertility of our land is higher today than it was in 1939. One of the main objects of my Department is to raise the general level of soil fertility still further. Means to this end include the keeping of many more livestock, which will increase the supply of natural manure; improved drainage and tillage; the increased use of lime and phosphates; the substitution of good leys for poor grass, and the more efficient control of weeds and pests.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that if he wants to increase the number of livestock, the best way to do so is to import more feedingstuffs? Why do we not have more feedingstuffs? Look at the Ministry of Food not very far away.

Potash Fertilisers

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the continuing shortage of fertilisers containing potash; and what steps he is taking to ensure that adequate supplies are available for spring sowing.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of any serious shortage of potash fertilisers at present. During the first eight months of the current fertiliser year greater supplies than ever before have been made available and arrangements are being more for further imports in time for spring sowing.

Mr. Hurd: If the Minister is not aware of the fact, will be make inquiries in the Southern Counties, where he will find to his satisfaction that potash is short of farmers' requirements?

Mr. Williams: I am equally satisfied that the supplies for the first eight months of this cropping year are 29 per cent. more than for the previous year.

Imported Grain (Storage)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether Ministry of Food depots that are being used for the storage of imported grain have been made proof against rats and mice; and whether he will permit local authorities to send their rodent officers to inspect these stores.

Mr. T. Williams: So far as is practicable, the depots, are made proof against rats and mice. They are periodically inspected and structural defects remedied. It is not, however, possible to make all the structures rat proof, nor is it possible to prevent entry of rats and mice into buildings which are in regular use for receiving and delivering grain. The inspection of stocks in Ministry of Food depots is carried out by my officers, and it is not necessary to duplicate inspection by calling upon local authorities.

Mr. Turton: Is it not advisable, in certain cases, to allow local authorities to inspect these depots in their areas?

Mr. Williams: I do not see the need for duplication. The hon. Member will be aware that the president of the National Farmers' Union at Thirsk yesterday made an inspection and expressed himself as quite satisfied.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no president of the local branch of the National Farmers' Union?

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that his answer was a "verminological" inexactitude?

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what quantity of imported barley and maize stored by the Minister of Food in aerodromes and depots has in the last 12 months been treated by his infestation operators against infestation


by weevil; and whether he is now satisfied that there is no weevil active in this imported grain.

Mr. T. Williams: During the 12 months ended 31st December, 1948, I arranged for the fumigation of over 105,000 tons of imported barley and 182,000 tons of imported maize, stored by the Ministry of Food. In addition, chemical spraying as a routine measure was carried out on stocks in many warehouses during the summer, but I am unable to give figures as to the volume of food so treated. I cannot guarantee that there is no weevil active in this imported grain, as complete elimination of insect life is rarely possible, even with the most efficient methods of control. The stocks are, however, under regular inspection, and are generally in good commercial condition.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister ensuring that the weevil-infested grain is disposed of as soon as it is practicably possible?

Sir W. Smithers: Will the cost of this cleansing be charged to the Ministry of Food, because it is their fault?

HORSES (EXPORT AND SLAUGHTER)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a recent consignment of horses to Belgium left Goole at 4 p.m. on Saturday, 12th February,1949, and were not disembarked at Antwerp until the morning of Tuesday, 15th February, 1949, the ship having meanwhile travelled through the canal to Ghent; whether partitions were provided separately for each horse; and, in view of the cramped conditions of the sea journey, whether such delay can be avoided in the future.

Mr. T. Williams: According to my information, each horse on this vessel had a stall to itself, and every stall was separated from others by division boards in accordance with the requirements of the Exportation and Transit of Horses, Asses and Mules Order, 1921. It would not be practicable for me to control the routes taken by ships carrying livestock or the length of voyage, which may be effected by various factors, such as the weather.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two inspectors of the R.S.P.C.A. were present on the boat; that they were sure there were no divisions between the horses, and that there were a large number of them in one hold? Is he also aware that it took three days to get to Belgium, and very great harm was caused to the horses?

Mr. Williams: My information is that this boat was recently inspected by the Ministry's Marine Superintendent and was stated by him to be very suitable for the carrying of horses.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of this conflict of evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries, because it is quite clearly undesirable that officials of these bodies should be making statements in direct contradiction to those made by the responsible authorities?

Mr. Williams: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why the Ministry's Marine Superintendent did make an inspection of this particular boat.

Mr. Solley: Would my right hon. Friend extend such an inquiry to other ports, including Tilbury? Is he aware that similar allegations are being made about the export of horses from Tilbury, and that this is really a serious problem?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend will provide me with any information about any particular boat at any specific dock, I shall be glad to look into the case.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the majority of the 28 horses arriving at Antwerp on the s.s. "Aire" on 15th February, 1949, had to be supplied with new halters by the Belgian authorities; and if he will see that horses are furnished with serviceable halters on leaving this country.

Mr. T. Williams: I was not aware that the shippers did not provide the horses with serviceable halters, but halters are carried on the s.s. "Aire" to replace, for the boat journey, any unsuitable ones supplied by the shippers. Consequently, no question seems to arise of unnecessary suffering being caused on this account to the horses during the journey.

Mr. Freeman: May I repeat what I said previously—that on this occasion an inadequate number of halters were provided and that a number of halters had to be supplied when the horses arrived on the other side?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am in no way responsible for what happens after the horses have landed.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the widespread worry in the country about this trade in old horses to the Continent, and in view also of the points which have been raised, would the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up some form of thorough inquiry to see what is really going on?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why not?

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will appoint a commission of inquiry into the question of the unregulated slaughter and trade in horses.

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the public anxiety aroused by the large-scale slaughter of horses for human consumption, he will cause a public inquiry to be held at an early date.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I can see no useful purpose in such an inquiry.

Mr. Collins: In view of the Questions which have already been asked this afternoon, and the obvious conflict of information between articles in the Press and views which my right hon. Friend has expressed, does he not agree that a commission of inquiry into this matter might lay at rest a great deal of public uneasiness in this matter? Therefore, will he reconsider the question?

Mr. Williams: The point of all these rumours——

Sir T. Moore: They are not rumours.

Mr. Williams: If hon. Members will provide evidence of any specific case of unnecessary cruelty or pain, I shall be very glad to look at it at any time. It is obvious, since we started the war with 50,000 tractors and now have over 250,000 tractors on our farms, that the need for horses is not what is was. There is also the fact, of course, that the

younger generation of farmers prefer mechanisation to horses and seven-days-a-week feeding.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, in common with other hon. Members, am constantly getting letters from constituents who are clearly genuinely disturbed by various things appearing in the newspapers? Would it not be a good thing to have an authoritative inquiry now, which would definitely bring out the facts and, if there is anything wrong, would recommend ways in which it could be obviated?

Mr. Williams: I will look at the matter again, but, so far as my knowledge goes at the moment, I do not see any real reason for an inquiry. However, I will gladly look at the question again.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread public demand for more information on this subject? When my right hon. Friend is reconsidering the matter, will he do it sympathetically and not doubtfully, in the way in which he has just spoken?

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am as kindly disposed towards horses as she ever was or will be.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that there is at the present time a surplus of working horses in Belgium. and that horses exported from this country to Belgium are almost exclusively slaughtered on arrival for food for human consumption, the Government will arrange for horses exported from this country to be slaughtered before being exported so as to avoid the unnecessary suffering of these aged animals from exposure to the sea voyage in stormy weather.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am not satisfied that such an arrangement is necessary.

Mr. De la Bère: If these horses have to be slaughtered at all, is it not very desirable that they should be slaughtered humanely at home instead of undergoing great suffering on these voyages to Belgium, which are taking place today? Is it not becoming more and more clear that we must have a proper comprehensive inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Williams: I have already informed the House that no horse is exported to Belgium except under licence, when it goes there to work and not for slaughter.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has not the right hon. Gentleman already informed the House that he has no control over what takes place in Belgium? Therefore, what does that assurance mean?

Mr. Williams: That is perfectly true. When horses are exported from this country, they are exported, on the basis of a certificate, for work purposes and not for slaughter.

Brigadier Head: Is not the Minister aware that this rule does not work in that way at all; and that it never has the effect which it is designed to have, namely, to prevent horses from being slaughtered very soon after their arrival—which is invariably what happens?

Mr. Williams: Since the case was brought to my notice a week or two ago, I undertook to have inquiries made into the specific case which was referred to in the Question. Those inquiries are now proceeding.

Brigadier Head: But it always happens.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend mean that so long as he gets a statement that a horse is required for work and not for slaughter, he issues the licence and washes his hands of the whole matter?

Mr. Williams: There are some forms of international arrangement by which one must obviously abide. If a certificate is given to the effect that horses exported from this country are for working purposes and not for slaughter, then one must obviously accept the certificate.

Mr. Silverman: Having issued the certificate, is not my right hon. Friend under the same obligation to see that its conditions are complied with, wherever the horse goes?

Mr. Williams: I have already informed the House that one case has been brought to my notice. Inquiries are taking place at this moment with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade

Mr. Stanley: If in a case such as this the right hon. Gentleman finds that, in fact, the certificate has been abused, has he any power to take action?

Mr. Williams: The only power I have is to prevent the same person from importing any more horses from this country.

Mr. De la Bère: This is a matter which cannot be lightly dismissed; indeed, it cannot be dismissed at all.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, CATERING

Sir W. Smithers: asked the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether his attention had been drawn to "Food Facts No. 451," issued by the Ministry of Food, and if he will apply the advice there given in the canteens and dining rooms in order to reduce loss.

Mr. McEntee: Yes, Sir. I know "Food Facts No. 451." It is headed "Hot filling meals for meatless days," and it gives five recipes, the first of which is described as "Mum's Special." Dishes of a similar kind to those on the leaflet do appear on the menus of the House. If Members express a desire to have meatless days, the Committee will give the matter careful consideration, but I cannot see how their adoption can reduce the loss.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the hon. Member aware that I am glad to see he is taking some advice from outside his own Department at last?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Member say how many "Mums" there are on the Kitchen Committee at the moment?

Mr. McEntee: If any hon. Member wants a "Mum's Special," we will do our best to have one prepared for him.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. McEntee: Proceedings on the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill, exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL

As amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PREMIUMS PAID TO A PREDECESSOR OF THE LANDLORD.)

Mr. McEntee: (1) Where under Section two of this Act the Tribunal determine the rental equivalent of a premium paid in respect of the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy of a dwelling-house, and the Tribunal are satisfied that since the premium was paid and before the twenty-fifth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the reversion had been conveyed or assigned for a consideration in money or money's worth, the Tribunal shall certify that this section applies.
(2) Where the Tribunal so certify, subsection (3) of the said Section two shall not have effect but the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) to this Act shall have effect in lieu thereof; and subsection (7) of that Section and subsection (4) of Section three of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of that Schedule.
(3) In this Section the expression "reversion," in relation to the grant continuance or renewal of a tenancy of a dwelling-house, means the estate or interest in the dwelling-house which, immediately after the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy, was expectant upon the determination of the term granted, continued or renewed. — [Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss at the same time the new Schedule, which we shall move later entitled, "Provisions as to Premiums paid to a Predecessor of the Landlord." This new Clause and the new Schedule relate entirely to each other. We are trying to provide for the case which was raised in the Committee stage where there has been a change of the landlord since the premium was paid. It is clear that it would be quite wrong to allow the tenant to recover a premium from a landlord who, in fact, never received a premium in the first place. This new Clause, therefore, makes special provision to enable the tenant first to go to the tribunal to establish the fact that there has been such a change of landlord and the

amount which he can recover, and the Schedule sets out the precise amount which the tenant can in fact, recover.
It will be seen that the provision is for recovery of lump sums. Obviously it would be impossible to recover from the initial landlord, the landlord who had originally received the premium, rent equivalent as is provided in the Bill for the generality of cases. This Clause, therefore, together with the Schedule, makes provision for the recovery of lump sums both in the case where the existing rent is in excess of the reasonable rent, and therefore the recovery of premium can be the full proportion of the premium which remains outstanding for the remaining period of the tenancy, and in the case for which subsection 2 (2) of the Schedule makes provision, where the reasonable rent may be higher than the standard and, therefore, only the excess part of the premium shall be allowed to be recovered.
There is also provision in paragraph 4 of the new Schedule that where an assignment takes place after a tenant has recovered such a lump sum from the original landlord, the assignor shall not be allowed to charge to the assignee the part of the premium which he has already recovered from the original landlord. Both the Schedule and the Clause are rather complex, but very briefly those are the provisions, and I think the House will agree that in this way, together with certain consequential Amendments which we shall meet later in the proceedings, we have met a proper point which was raised in Committee by hon. Members on all sides.

Colonel Dower: I was not on the Committee, but I have a certain amount of interest in these things, so perhaps I may ask the hon. Member a question before he sits down. There is a great difficulty sometimes in finding the first landlord; it is not at all easy to trace him or to know where he has gone. What kind of procedure will be possible? Will the rent tribunal be able to help in any way?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Committee stage of this Bill was taken on the Floor of the House and every hon. Member was a member of the Committee. With regard to the second point raised by the hon. and gallant Member it was because of the difficulty which sometimes might occur in


finding the landlord that I did not put this proposal in the original Bill. It was, however, represented to me from all sides of the Committee that there ought to be power to proceed against a landlord where he could be found. That is why we have introduced the proposal into the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister has done his best to meet what is admittedly a very complex situation. I do not deny that this is the sort of legislation where, in attempting to correct anomalies, one is reminded of the ancient legend of the Hydra and Hercules' attempts to deal with it; when one of its heads was cut off it immediately grew two in its place. It is true that as one attempts to correct an anomaly in this legislation there is a danger of creating other and greater anomalies. In fact, we drew attention to that in our Amendment on the Second Reading.
Nevertheless, I think the Minister has attempted to deal with this point. We must, I think, trust the skill of the Ministry and the Ministry's draftsmen in introducing the most satisfactory solution to this very difficult point. As the Minister himself said, he has not attempted to pursue the matter too far. It may be said that this could go on almost indefinitely, but again I think that would give rise to a far greater crop of anomalies than any which could possibly be remedied by it. We do not, therefore, raise any objection to the new Clause; we welcome it as a concession to meet a point of view put forward by us.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My right hon. Friend said this was a concession to meet a point raised on all sides of the Committee. I take the liberty of reminding him that when this was being discussed in Committee I expressed my own doubts of the wisdom of conceding it. I said at the time that if on consideration of the matter my right hon. Friend still thought the point ought to be made, I should not make any difficulties at this stage, and, therefore, I am not proposing to ask the House to reject it at all, but I hope my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, will not mind if I take the opportunity to put on record my own opinion that this is a mistake.
When a man buys a house he buys it subject to tenancies. He knows about

the tenancies. He can inform himself about the tenancies. He can raise whatever requisitions he thinks it right to raise before completing the sale. He can inquire if any premium has been paid in respect of the tenancy. He can inquire how much it is. He can form his opinion whether it is a reasonable or unreasonable premium. If on all that knowledge he completes the purchase, I should think that the proper assumption would be that he decided to take it with such risks as there might be.

Colonel Dower: But suppose that he is given the information that no premium was paid even though it was? That could often be the case.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think it would very often be the case. Requisitions are raised by purchasers through their solicitors and answered by the vendors through their solicitors. It is not a new thing, but a thing which takes place on every transaction in land that happens. It is not in the least true that requisitions are often answered untruthfully or fraudulently. Of course, if a vendor did answer such a requisition untruthfully or fraudulently, the purchaser would have the remedy which this new Clause is proposing to give to the tenant.
Therefore, I make the point that it would have been—and was as the Bill was originally drawn—perfectly easy for the purchaser of property of this kind to protect himself against the possibility of having to repay a premium, and that there is nothing unfair or inequitable about it. If, on the other hand, we relieve him of that obligation it means he can buy without making any inquiries about premiums at all, and, obviously, the door is open to one very easy means of evading the provisions of the Bill; because it means that wherever a premium has been accepted in respect of a tenancy the man who has received the premium, if he sells at once, will, at any rate, make it to that extent more difficult for the tenant to pursue him or recover the premium he has paid when he ought not to have paid it.
Therefore, we shall be putting an additional burden on the tenant, in a matter where the whole purpose of the legislation is to relieve him, in order to protect the purchasing landlord from a risk which he could perfectly well protect himself


against. In other words, we are putting an additional obstacle on the tenant without conferring any advantage on the owner which he could not have conferred on himself without putting that burden on the tenant at all. Therefore, I think it worth while to put it on record that, for my part, I think this is a mistake. and that it ought not to be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURT.)

Mr. Silverman: Subsection (2) of Section seventeen of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (which extends the jurisdiction of county courts in respect of proceedings under that Act) shall have effect in relation to any claim or proceedings for the recovery of any sum which is recoverable by virtue of this Act as it applies to the claims and proceedings mentioned in that subsection. —[Mr. Blenkinsop]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause merely provides the procedure by which the lump sums we have been considering in the previous Clause are to be recovered. It is the same procedure as is provided in the principal Acts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that it does not raise any great question of principle, and in the circumstances we offer no objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNMENT OF FURNISHED LETTINGS.)

(1) Where the rent payable for any premises is entered in the register under the provisions of the Act of 1946, and, in the case in which the approval, reduction or increase made by the tribunal is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, that period has not expired, the following provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to the premises.

(2) Save as hereinafter provided, a person shall not, as a condition of the grant, renewal, continuance or assignment of rights under a contract to which the Act of 1946 applies, require the payment of any premium:

Provided that this subsection shall not prevent—

(a) a requirement that there shall be paid so much of any outgoings discharged by a grantor or assignor as is referable to any period after the grant or assignment takes effect;
(b) a requirement that there shall be paid a reasonable amount in respect of goodwill of a business, trade or profession, being goodwill transferred to a grantee or assignee in connection with the grant or assignment or accruing to him in consequence thereof.

(3) Subsections (7), (8) and (10) of Section three, and Section four, of this Act shall with the necessary modifications apply for the purposes of this Section as they apply for the purposes of the said Section three.

(4) The following provisions of the Act of 1946, that is to say—

(a) paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section four (which prohibits the requiring of premiums on a grant, continuance or renewal of a letting where the rent payable is registered under the Act of 1946);
(b) in subsection (2) of that Section the words "or consideration," "or value" and or given";
(c) in subsection (1) of Section nine of the Act of 1946, the words "or any consideration," "or the value of the consideration given." and "or the consideration given,"

are hereby repealed:

Provided that, without prejudice to the operation of Section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889, nothing in this Section shall be construed as affecting the operation of the said provisions of the Act of 1946 as respects anything done before the commencement of this Act.—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause does not raise any new principle. It is merely to meet the point raised in Committee that we should provide a similar procedure in regard to the illegality of premiums in respect of furnished lettings as has now been provided by this Bill in other cases. The procedure here is to be similar. There is provision here to establish the same procedure as in the other cases.

Mr. Janner: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for having accepted the suggestion that was made by me in Committee and for having put it in a form which is very much better than the one I myself prepared. There is, however, a point I should like to put about it, because there is a question of


some doubt in my mind and in the minds of others as to the meaning of the new Clause. Is the period referred to—the Clause says the "period has not expired "—sufficient to cover a case where an extension of time has been given by the tribunal in respect of the period during which the notice shall run? I can understand that the period should be the time originally provided for in the Bill. Does this, however, clearly cover the case where extended periods are given for security? It may cover that quite definitely. I want to be assured that it does so.

Mr. Bevan: I wonder what my hon. Friend means by his question. Does he mean where security of tenure is renewed?

Mr. Janner: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: I should not have thought that this had anything at all to do with that.

Mr. Janner: Reference is made here to
… a case in which the approval, reduction or increase made by the tribunal is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, that period has not expired. …
Does that also cover the period which has been extended? I want to know whether the new Clause covers the extended period which the tribunal may have given.

Mr. Bevan: indicated assent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I want to draw attention to the difficulties Parliament places on such bodies as these by this sort of legislation. I draw attention particularly to subsection (2, b) which says:
Provided that this subsection shall not prevent—

(b) a requirement that there shall be paid a reasonable amount in respect of goodwill of a business, trade or profession, being goodwill transferred to a grantee or assignee in connection with a grant or assignment or accruing to him in consequence thereof."

This is a point which will come up again later, but it does seem to me that the burden being placed upon the bodies which are to determine these amounts is growing greater with every Clause we add to the Bill. The House will remember the very complicated and exacting provisions that were made in the National Health Service Act to ensure that no transfer of goodwill could possibly take

place in connection with a doctor's house. Conceive the set of circumstances which are arising here, where a tribunal will have to determine what is the reasonable sum, let us say, in respect of a house previously occupied by a masseuse.
I do not intend, of course, to ask the House to reject this Clause because I think that the Minister, having started upon this course, must do his best to provide against the various contingencies. I do, however, draw attention to the point we shall make later—to the necessity for co-ordinating the decisions, the inevitably conflicting and divergent decisions, which will be given by scores of tribunals operating without any direction whatever in circumstances of enormous diversity. I do ask the House to consider what half a. dozen tribunals in different parts of the country may easily decide to be a reasonable amount to be paid in respect of
goodwill of a … profession… transferred to a grantee or assignee in connection with the grant or assignment or accruing to him in consequence thereof.
The difficulty is added to because the conditions are retrospective. How do we get at what is reasonable in the case of the business of a masseuse, the goodwill of which was transferred some time ago in consequence of a decision made by two people in ignorance of the fact that Parliament was about to take any account of the action many years afterwards? The tribunal will have to weigh this up. It has been said in the courts of law that the devil himself cannot know the mind of man. In this case, it is lay people who are being asked to know the minds of two persons and to go back to what they were thinking six or seven years before. It shows the state to which Parliament is being led by legislation of this kind and by retrospective provisions. I do not wish to dilate on the difficulties of the furniture provisions, although they will differ from one part of the country to another. On this simple point of goodwill, it seems to us on this side of the House that the case which it makes out for some co-ordination of these decisions, and which we shall move in later stages, is irresistible.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is one question which I wish to ask on this point of the interpretation of the word "goodwill." It will be no


doubt recalled that under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, provision was made for compensation for goodwill in certain circumstances. It was provided there by Section (4) that
the tribunal shall, in determining the amount of goodwill—disregard any value which is attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises.
Is it sought to import into the word "goodwill" in the new Clause the same meaning as is attached to the word "goodwill" by the Landlord and Tenant Act, or are we to have words used in a different sense? If we are not going to disregard any value which is "attributable exclusively to the situation of the premises," it seems to me that the tribunal will get into very great difficulty in administering and interpreting this provision. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to what extent the definition of the word "goodwill" here differs from the definition in that Act.

Mr. Bevan: It is not possible for me to define what is meant by "goodwill" because the tribunal itself will do that. It would be improper for me here to utter what would not be a statutory direction unless included in the Bill. The tribunal fixes the rents. We are not dealing with the matter on which the tribunal will arbitrate. It will be for the courts to construe this matter. This is a prohibition on assignment, and we are getting rather confused in imagining that the tribunal itself will construe this. All that the tribunal will do is to fix the rent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: How does the right hon. Gentleman connect that with subsection (1) of the new Clause:
in a case in which the approval, reduction or increase made by the tribunal is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, that period has not expired, the following provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to the premises.
It seems to me to connect it with a decision of the tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: The tribunal will have to determine what was a reasonable rent in the first instance and it will be determining from time to time, as the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) intimated in his question, what would be the period of tenancy. As to whether in fact a certain sum of money could be

paid on assignment, is a matter for the court to construe and not for the tribunal, as I understand the position from my legal advisers.
As to the actual merits of the proposal itself, this will occur in very rare instances indeed. This is not a normal eventuality and, therefore, any mischief, if mischief there be, will be expressly limited. It is perfectly true that the tribunal will reach a large number of different decisions. The circumstances themselves will be very diverse. I am talking about the way in which the tribunal will be fixing the rent and not the way in which the court will construe the Clause. The rents will be fixed by the tribunal having regard to all the circumstances of the case. As the circumstances will be inevitably diverse, then the decisions themselves will inevitably be diverse.
It is because of the diversity of the conditions that we have to have a tribunal of this kind to determine them. In this whole field of rent legislation, the courts have reached a diversity of decision about the same facts. It is because the courts have reached so many diverse decisions about what we thought were the same facts, that part of this Bill is necessary. The tribunal itself, being a much more flexible instrument, will be able to make its decisions relate to the particular facts of the case. That is why we put forward the merits of the tribunal for cases like this as distinct from the merits of the courts.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I would say that the Minister's point that the courts had given diverse decisions was not exactly germane to the question of these decisions. The courts give different decisions, but there is a court of appeal by who those diverse decisions are coordinated. These decisions in the tribunals are being given independently, without any appeal and without any possibility of a co-ordinating decision which will bring into relation these diverse decisions. Although, as the Minister said, the courts will construe this Clause, yet the tribunal itself, in giving these decisions, is surely bound by the remainder of the Clause; and in its decisions as to what ought or ought not to be reasonable, or where something had unreasonably been done, or a rent ought to be


reduced, it would surely have to make these decisions in accordance with its own interpretation of the remaining subsections of the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(ADJUSTMENT OF STAMP DUTIES.)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Where upon the grant continuance renewal or assignment of a tenancy stamp duty has been paid upon a rent or other consideration which is reduced or otherwise affected by any determination of the Tribunal under this Act there shall be repaid to the person by whom such stamp duty was paid upon a claim being made by him for the purpose such sum as represents the difference between the stamp duty so paid and the stamp duty which would have been payable at the date of the instrument upon which the stamp duty was paid as aforesaid if the rent or other consideration for such grant continuance renewal or assignment had been in accordance with the determination of the tribunal less such part of such difference as represents the proportion which the period during which the rent or other consideration stated in the instrument was payable by the person by whom the stamp duty was paid bears to the period beginning with the said grant continuance renewal or assignment and ending with the date which would be the relevant date for the purposes of Section two of this Act.—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that the House having swallowed the camel will not strain at the gnat. This is merely a suggestion that where the State has profited by this instruction which the State subsequently declared to be illegal, the State should not thereby profit from a transaction that the State has decided is wrong. Of course, there are other people concerned in it. There is the worthy profession of solicitors. They also have drawn fees from this transaction which has subsequently been declared to be illegal, but as they had nothing to do with declaring it illegal, it might seemed a little harsh that they should be subsequently prosecuted and their costs taxed or reduced by an adequate proportion of whatever the tribunal decides. As for the State, I do not think the State has any possible line of retreat from this. The State allowed the transaction; the State profited by the transaction; the State now breaks the transaction: the

State therefore, it seems to me, is not entitled to receive moneys on behalf of this transaction.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I must resist this new Clause. It is quite easy to exaggerate its value. A very small amount of money is involved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Like the housemaid's baby.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but I am not merely resisting it on account of that. If the demand itself were just, I should not resist it, but this is not the Bill in which to state whether or not exemptions from Stamp Duty should take place. That should really be done in the Finance Act, not here. There are very few instances indeed—I think it is only where Stamp Duty has been wrongly paid, or where there has been a misdirection or something of that sort—on which exemption takes place, and I think it would be an improper use of this vehicle to exempt people from Stamp Duty in it.
I have tried to find out what would be the kind of value of the Stamp Duty which would be paid here. I think it is £1 for every £200, and £2 for every £100 rent. That would be the maximum charge. So we are really talking about very, very small chips indeed. I should not have thought that we ought to use the weighty instrument of an entirely new Clause for the purpose of stating that, when the tribunal comes to assess what should be paid by way of reduced rent in respect of a rental equivalent on a premium they should take into consideration that proportion of the Stamp Duty which has in fact expired. I think that would be a very small matter indeed, and I must resist this proposed new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Perhaps I might speak again with the leave of the House. The Minister's defence was about as fine a piece of wire-drawing as I have ever seen him indulge in. I can imagine the shreds into which we would have been torn had the Minister been on the other side, or if this had been something in which some of his prot"g"s were particularly concerned. We would have been told: "£1 or £2 to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their castles, their pineries and their vineries, their staghounds and fox hunting"——

Mr. Bevan: It is not a fraction of £1.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Even so, we would have been told that the smaller the fraction, the less it would have appeared in the Minister's diminuendo glass. The right hon. Gentleman would have brought it down to these trivial sums, and then said:"It is important to the small man or woman who is my particular client. What is only 10s. to hon. and right hon. Members opposite is an enormous sum to people in my class of life, to people amongst whom I was brought up." The Minister could plead with great eloquence on either side, and the fact that on this occasion he was not able to put up a better case shows that he feels very unconvinced on the matter. I should have thought, especially when he says this is not the place in which to give Stamp Duty exemption, that the place where injustice is committed and the occasion upon which it is being committed are, surely, the place in which and the occasion upon which the injustice should be remedied. The place where it is being caused is the place where it should be dealt with, and that is in this Bill. We are admittedly exacting the return of sums—

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appears to be forgetting all the while that we are assuming that the tribunal has decided that an unreasonable premium has been charged. He pretends that someone who has paid Stamp Duty on an unreasonable act ought to have a portion of that Stamp Duty taken into account in determining what he ought to pay back. That is a most extraordinary conception of justice: someone has taken a sum of money he ought not to have taken, and when we try to estimate what he should have taken, we ought to reduce the Stamp Duty by the extent to which he has been able to get away with what he ought never to have charged. That is a most astonishing argument. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in trying to devise an Amendment to put down, has taxed his ingenuity to such an extent as to overrun his virtue.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I knew that if we, so to speak, dragged our coat up and down the Floor of the House long

enough the Minister would not be able to refrain from treading upon it.

Mr. Bevan: And ripping it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, I hope to prove not, because I observe what the Minister concealed from the House—and he must have concealed it intentionally, because he ought to know it by this time. He was talking about what was a perfectly legal transaction at the time it was done. What the Minister says is that people who were permitted by the State, and indeed encouraged by the State, to enter into this transaction should have divined on their own instance, that it was unreasonable and wrong. It is the Minister who is now seeking to make this transaction illegal. The transaction was perfectly legal and perfectly right at the time, and it is an astonishing doctrine for a Minister of the Crown to say that a transaction into which it was immoral for two private citizens to enter, and in respect of which the State drew revenue, should be quashed as regards the two private citizens but the State should still continue to draw revenue from it. There is no limit to the extent of the remarkable doctrine which the Minister is now commending to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman twits us with the fact that we have exercised our ingenuity in drafting an Amendment to put down. Indeed, that is not so. We have Amendments of great substance upon the Order Paper. I admit that this Amendment deals with small sums. The fact that it also deals with justice or injustice, naturally does not weigh with the Minister. However, we shall get on to the more substantial points, and it is for the very reason that we want to get on to the more substantial points that I do not wish to delay the House further by discussing this matter. We are not merely absolutely unconvinced by the Minister's arguments—we generally are by his arguments—but we are also absolutely unimpressed at his way of presenting them. That is not always so, because on many occasions upon which the Minister's arguments are very thin indeed he presents them with such sound, vigour and fury that we desire that he, like the lion in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," should roar again. On this occasion we do not ask him to roar again, but rather


that he should as speedily as possible pass away from what has been an unsatisfactory exhibition.

Mr. Mitchison: May a still smaller voice be heard to follow the roarings of the lion, to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite the interesting and, I think, complete parallel to what they are attempting to do? A lease is granted lawfully; Stamp Duty is paid on it; the house is then used for immoral purposes, and the lease is voided. Is it seriously suggested that the Stamp Duty should be returnable?

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(APPEAL.)

Mr. Mitchison: Any person, including a local authority by whom a reference is made under the Act of 1946, aggrieved by a determination of the tribunal under this Act or the Act of 1946 may within twenty-one days from the date of the determination apply to have the question referred to the tribunal determined by a person selected from the panel of official arbitrators appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.—
[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Lieut.-Colonel Elliot; Commander Galbraith; Mr. Walker-Smith.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is out of Order. As none of the hon. or right hon. Members on whom I called rose, we must pass to the next new Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As it is a technicality that the proposed new Clause should be moved by somebody in whose name it stands on the Order Paper, I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
If I wish to speak again I should ask the leave of the House, which I trust would not be withheld. I do not wish to dilate upon this proposed new Clause at present because my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is, if I may say so, better acquainted with it than any of us, he having taken up this point particularly with the object of bringing it before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I rather deprecate the practice of moving a new Clause and then making another speech later in the Debate.

Mr. Molson: We attach great importance to this new Clause, and we are still not without hope that the Minister will give consideration to the matter even at this late stage. Under the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, no central appeal body was set up to coordinate the decisions that were given. Manifestly, the effect of this Bill will be to introduce this system of a notional reasonable rent in the case of an immensely larger number of properties than has been the case in the past. Surely it is of the utmost importance that there shall be the same criteria of reasonableness applied in all parts of the country.
I hope to speak on a later Amendment asking once more that general principles of guidance may be laid down, but if that Amendment is not accepted and all these tribunals are to be left to act in the light of their own judgment as to what is reasonable, almost inevitably there will be an immense variety of decisions arrived at in different parts of the country. Even if the Government are prepared to accept the later Amendment for some guidance to be given as to what principles the tribunals shall take into account, the experience of courts of law is that different courts arrive at different conclusions and it is necessary therefore to have a single court of appeal where conflicting decisions given in different parts of the country can be brought into harmony with each other.
I can think of nothing that would be more likely to bring this procedure into discredit than that we should see one tribunal in one part of London, acting in perfectly good faith and taking certain considerations into account, coming to a different conclusion to another tribunal in a neighbouring part of London also acting in perfectly good faith. We might find that what was considered to be a reasonable rent in one case was held not to be reasonable in another. It seems to us vital, whether these tribunals are good or bad, that some central appeal tribunal should be set up to bring decisions into harmony.
Good as many of these tribunals are, some have arrived at the most extraordinary decisions. I do not apologise for quoting this case again, because when I first raised it during the Committee stage the Minister was away having a very hurried dinner and I received no answer to it. The case concerns a decision taken by the Acton, Ealing, Hayes and Harlington tribunal, presided over by Miss Venetia Stevenson. My correspondent is an old client of 25 years ago whom I have not met since this Bill came before the House. He bought a house for himself during the war for £1,900 and purchased a similar house for £4,100 in 1947. He wanted to convert the second house into flats and to furnish them. He calculated to obtain a net profit of 3 percent. on the transaction. Three out of four of his tenants went to the tribunal and obtained a substantial reduction in rent, with the result that he is now making a net profit of £4 a year at a risk of about £8,000. If the fourth tenant goes to the tribunal and obtains a reduction he will be working at a loss. This case indicates the desirability of having some means whereby aggrieved persons may go to a single appeal tribunal which harmonises the decisions given by the tribunals throughout the country.
We are not wedded to the particular tribunal suggested in the new Clause. During the Committee stage we suggested an appeal to the county court, but the Minister took exception to that on the grounds that he thought it inappropriate when matters had been dealt with informally for an appeal to be made to a court of law. The exact tribunal is not the important point we want to urge. We say it is undesirable that a large number of tribunals should be set up without any guidance being given to them, being left with complete and free discretion without any means being provided whereby their decisions can be harmonised.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested earlier that the Opposition had new Clauses later on the Order Paper which were of great substance, and this is one of them. This is of great substance, being short, simple, understandable and completely destructive of the Bill. It was intended in the 1946 Act to provide a simple tribunal to

which ordinary people could apply to get a just decision on what they should pay for lettings. This Bill extends the powers of the tribunal in several respects, especially in regard to the fixation of rents for new lettings since 1939. That is the only extent to which the tribunals' powers are substantially extended.
It was always understood—because we followed the precedent of our colleagues in Scotland—that the best kind of tribunal would be one which was local. That is to say, it would have knowledge of the actual locality, it would be able to arbitrate on the facts of the case, it would be easily accessible to the people wishing to go before it, both principal tenants and sub-tenants, it would be informal so as not to frighten people, and it would be inexpensive so that people would not be deterred from seeking justice. I have resisted throughout any attempt to appeal against a tribunal because all those considerations would be absent from the appeal.
Where a tribunal is held to have exceeded its powers under the statute action can be taken in the courts to restrain it. It is for the courts to see that the tribunal confines itself to its statutory powers and obligations. But where there is an appeal from the determination of the tribunal the virtues of the tribunal are lost. Its simplicity, localism, inexpensiveness, informality and immediate relation to particular facts are lost. The effect of this new Clause would be to destroy not only the merits of the Bill but all the merits which the tribunals have had ever since they have been set up. I am astonished at the Opposition, at this late hour, should have sought to convince the House that we should carry this Clause, which is of an entirely destructive character.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) gave an illustration of what he considered to be an injustice against a landlord who bought a house at what seemed to be at an excessive cost. It is no part of our duty to protect a person against having made a bad bargain. All we can do is to see that he does not pass along to the lessee of the furnished letting the consequences of his own impropriety.

Mr. Molson: This is of the utmost importance, because throughout the whole proceedings on this Bill we have been trying in vain to obtain an understanding of the principles on which the Minister


wishes the tribunals to act. If the house was bought at the end of the war at a high price, when the prices of all houses were high, are we to understand that the reasonable rent at which the landlord is expected to let the flats into which that house was converted may be such as would result in a loss to him?

Mr. Bevan: We must take into account the conveniences and amenities that the tenants of the furnished lettings are having. Normally, tribunals do take into account the cost to the landlord of providing furnished lettings, but where an excess payment has been made by the landlord it would be against the spirit of the Bill if the pure cash element should increase payment for furnished lettings. What is paid should have some relationship to the conveniences which are being enjoyed. I do not intend to lay down directions, because once I do, then I have deprived the tribunals of the elasticity that they have possessed. But assuming that the case which the hon. Member made is a proper case. Suppose, in such a case, the tribunal misdirected itself. Does he intend to abolish the validity of the tribunal because of that? Because the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, sometimes reaches a decision which may be regarded by some as being foolish would he abolish it?

Mr. Molson: That is the whole point. In the case of the courts there is a single court of appeal which, rightly or wrongly, co-ordinates decisions over the whole country. Under this legislation there is nothing to prevent each tribunal from having a different series of cases decided on different principles.

Mr. Bevan: That is beside the point, because I just mentioned the Supreme Court. Even if it could be shown that a tribunal such as the Supreme Court itself had reached what was considered to be an unreasonable conclusion, that is no reason at all for doubting its general validity. If it could be shown that according to the opinions of people who did not look at the facts, the tribunal had made a wrong decision, that is no reason why we should destroy the value of that tribunal entirely, as this Clause would do. It is not desirable, in these cases, that the decision should be in doubt; it is not desirable that we should import into this legislation machinery so complicated

as to deter people from seeking from the tribunals what they want. I must resist the proposed Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister's argument is directed against having a court of appeal. That may be his view, but it is not the view which is taken by any system of justice—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not ask leave of the House to speak a second time.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I thought it was tacitly given, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but if I may I will, with the leave of the House, proceed with my argument. I am sure the Minister would be the last to desire that the argument should not be fully presented to the House. I fear that we shall have to divide the House on this Clause, because it is necessary to indicate——

Mr. Bevan: Why did not the Opposition ask for this in 1946?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman said that the whole thing was coming to an end in 1947.

Mr. Bevan: indicated dissent

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, I have his quotation here. I am sure he is acquainted with his own statute. He not merely put it into the statute, but drew attention to it in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said the whole thing would stop in 1947. Here he is extending the provisions to a very wide set of cases, and he is making this, so far as we can see, a permanent part of the machinery of justice. That deals with the right hon. Gentleman's point that the Bill extends to new lettings from 1939. It does not: it makes permanent a piece of machinery which was previously temporary.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that it was desirable for tribunals to be friendly and informal, that they should be capable of reasonable approach. I shall give the analogy of the pensions tribunals. If there is any class of man for whom it is desirable to provide a court to which he can go in an informal manner, and which will be a friendly and inexpensive way of giving a decision, surely it is a man who was wounded in defence of his country. This point was actually brought to the attention of the


House by one who has a better right than anyone to do so, my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) when he said:
The whole feeling on all sides of the House when these tribunals were set up was that they should be homely affairs, not particularly formal, and not necessarily legalistic or following procedure in any well defined form, but friendly tribunals to which men could come with confidence and get fair judgment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I too know a great deal about this procedure and it is only fair to compare like with like. In the case of the assessment tribunal under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, there is no appeal to a higher authority, only an entitlement, which is rather different.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman says it is rather different, but that is only a quibble. I am saying that these tribunals, to which both the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale was referring, were similar to this, and the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale was repeating words which the Minister previously used about the rent tribunals. I do not think he will deny that. The words "homely," "not formally," "not legalistic" as my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale said, are applicable, and this was not controverted at the time, but the Parliamentary Secretary says that appeals have been granted in a certain class of cases. He will not deny that there is entitlement, and everyone of us knows—

Mr. Bevan: It is analogous to jurisdiction under which a person can go to the court.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is straining the matter too far. Entitlement is exactly the sort of thing that Parliament had in mind to be discussed and decided by these informal, friendly courts. The man should go before this body because he is entitled to do so. Naturally none of these cases are 100 per cent. identical with each other. I am merely giving an analogy when I say that the fact was brought out by my hon. Friend that a case can go to appeal. It has not been denied by the

Parliamentary Secretary, who has a great experience of these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale said:
Here is a situation where between 30,000 and 50,000 cases go to the tribunals and only a few score of cases go to appeal on points of law. Moreover, there is value in allowing cases to go to appeal on points of law because one can get a directive from the superior court which comes to the tribunals and can assist in bringing about uniformity of judgment throughout the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1949; Vol 461, c. 1306.]
The Minister seems to be pleading a principle which goes very much further than the cases to which he would now seek to direct our attention. I could not make out from the Minister's argument anything that would limit the extension of that to other cases of appeal. It is a great advantage to have swift decisions. So swift was the decision taken at Jed-burgh that the man was hanged first and the trial took place afterwards. It was known as "Jedburgh justice," but it was never held up for imitation by superior tribunals and it has been generally frowned upon ever since. The Minister may desire an immediate decision, but a wrong decision is no better because it is a swift decision and because there is no appeal against it.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) instanced two cases cheek by jowl in two slices of London in which there might be a different decision with no means of bringing them into co-ordination. I put it to the House that this is an undesirable position if it is to be a permanent feature of our legislation and of our justice. That is where the fundamental difference arises between the Minister's original Bill and this Bill, and between a temporary and a permanent Bill. Naturally, we do not wish to labour the point, because it seems to us absolutely crystal clear. As the Minister says, our new Clause is simple, clear and important. He disagrees with us. We believe most strongly in this principle. and we shall take every opportunity of pressing it upon those who are responsible for carrying on the Government of this country.

Question put: "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 93 Noes, 154.

Division No. 74.] 
AYES
[4.37 p.m. 


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt, Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E
Hollis, M. C.
Pato, Brig. C. H. M


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. 'Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J, R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C
Langford-Holt, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R, K.
Snepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smithers, Sir W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaitc-Eyrc, Col. O. E
MaoAndrew, Col, Sir C
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macdonald, Sir P, (I. of Wight)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y
McFarlane, C. S.
Studholme, H. G.


De la Bere, R
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd"t"n, S.)


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G, E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C,


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.



Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Head, Brig A. H.
Odey, G. W.
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.




NOES


Albu, A, H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Mitchison, G. R


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Gibbins, J.
Monslow, W


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefteld (Crewe)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.


Attewell, H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Murray, J. D.


Austin, H. Lewis
Grey, C. F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Ayles, W. H,
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Palmer, A. M. F


Bacon, Miss A
Guy. W. H.
Parker, J


Balfour, A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Parkin, B. T.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Barstow, P. G
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Piratin, P.


Barton, C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Popplewell, E.


Battley, J. R.
Harrison, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Bechervaise, A E.
Haworth, J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M
Proetor, W. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R.
Ranaall, H. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Holman, P
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hoy, j.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hynd, j. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire>


Bramall, E. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Rogers, G. H, R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Segal, Dr. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jenkins, R. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sharp, Granville


Burden, T. W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Kendall, W. D.
Simmons, C. J.


Champion, A. J
Kinley, J.
Skeffington, A. M


Chater, D.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skinnard, F. W.


Chetwynd, G. R
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Cocks, F. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Snow, J. W.


CoHick, P.
Lyne, A. w.
Solley, L. J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
McAdam, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cova, W. G.
MsEntee, V La T
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mack, J. D.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Symcmds, A. L.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Albert (Islington, W)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Tiffany, S.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Titterirtgton, M. F


Farthing, W. J
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.


Foot, M. M
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Walkden, E







Wallace, G. D, (Chislehurst)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Youns, Sir R. (Newton)


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)



Warbey, W. N.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Willis, E.
Mr. Pearson and


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A
Mr. Richard Adams.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Yates, V. F

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Sir John Mellor.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. May I ask why the proposed new Clause standing in my name and dealing with the subject of premiums is not being called? It appears to me to fall within the provisions of the Bill, which is designed to
provide in certain cases for the determination by a tribunal of standard rents for the purposes of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939.
The Bill also purports to deal, and I believe does deal with
the adjustment of rents by a tribunal where premiums have been paid.
The Clause which is in my name on the Order Paper comes, in my respectful contention, within both those purposes.
The Financial Resolution dealt with the determination by tribunals of standard rents, for the purposes of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts. The houses to which the proposed new Clause refers are those which are within the rateable values in those Acts. Every new Clause, with one exception moved today has sought to extend the duties of tribunals, particularly the new Clause which was moved by the Minister himself, in which he introduced for the first time provisions relating to the prohibition of premiums on grant or assignment of furnished lettings. There was no question of that sort of provision in the original Bill. It is true that I moved an Amendment to that effect during the Committee stage, and subsequently withdrew it. The new Clause which the Minister has moved places upon the tribunals duties and obligations which were not within the provisions of the Bill as originally drawn.
Nevertheless, I agree that the Minister's new Clause comes within the purview of the Bill. I think my proposed new Clause does so also. There could not have been any question when the Bill was introduced that the Bill was not intended to prevent the payment of premiums. Therefore, a Clause which is introduced with

the object of preventing frustration of the intentions of the Bill by a subterfuge surely must come within the Measure as originally proposed. It is my belief that the whole object of the Bill can be sidestepped by a person——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member must not discuss the merits of the proposed new Clause which has been ruled out of Order. I am listening to a submission by him why he thinks that the proposed new Clause is in Order.

Mr. Janner: I think that the proposed new Clause is relevant for the reason that the Bill was introduced partly to prevent the payment of premiums, but is framed in such a way that anybody intending to avoid the intention for which the Bill——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the proposed new Clause is out of Order not because it is outside the Money Resolution or outside the scope of the Bill, but because it places new duties on the tribunals and thereby increases the charge. It is therefore out of Order because, without a recommittal of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman cannot move this Clause on the Report stage.

Mr. Janner: If that is so, my contention is that new Clauses which have already been accepted and which are entirely new proposals, come precisely within that category. I ask your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the point I am making, having in view the fact that precisely the same arguments might be used in respect of the new Clause which was moved by the Minister dealing with the prohibition of premiums on the grant of assignment of furnished lettings. There cannot be the slightest doubt that that Clause will cause a tremendous increase of work to the tribunals, quite rightly of course. The new Clause which I am proposing would not impose anything like the same amount of additional duties upon them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot change my mind in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(VARIATION OF STANDARD RENTS FIXED BY REFERENCE TO NEW LETTINGS.)

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after "circumstances," to insert:
(not being circumstances peculiar to the landlord or the tenant for the time being of that dwelling-house.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that tribunals shall have regard to all the circumstances of the premises and all the terms of the contract but shall not have any regard to the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant. During the discussion on the Committee stage, some difference of opinion was expressed with regard to the proper interpretation in this respect of Clause 1 (4). The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) said:
As I understand it, the wording of the subsection would leave it open to the tribunal to have regard to the circumstances of the tenant if they regarded that as a relevant matter on the issue of what was a reasonable rent for the premises. In my judgment the tribunal should be free to determine whether that is a relevant factor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1045.]
The Minister of Health took the opposite view and I think the right view, but it is a matter which should be cleared up. When I asked him to express his view of the interpretation of the subsection, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We are not dealing here with the personal circumstances of the tenant. We are not dealing with the personal circumstances of the landlord. It would not matter twopence whether the tenant was one of Jehovah's witnesses or whether the landlord was a Holy Roller. It has nothing to do with the matter at all. It is a purely property relationship. It does not deal with the subjective content of the landlord and the tenant, but with the objective contractual relations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1054–5.]
I think the Minister is right in that interpretation, but the fact remains that differences of view were expressed and this subsection will have to be interpreted by lay tribunals. I am sure that the Minister will agree that no expression of opinion which has been given in this House as to the interpretation of the subsection would have any weight, and certainly should not have any weight, with any tribunal which has to construe it. An assurance which he might give to us, however welcome, would not in any way be binding upon

any court. I am not asking the Government to amend the Clause by way of giving any directions—I know that the Minister has expressed his strong objection to giving any directions—but to amend only by way of clarification. In view of some doubt having been expressed as to the interpretation of the Clause, it is desirable that subsection (4) should be amended in order to make it clear that the tribunal should have no regard whatsoever to the personal circumstancs of the landlord or the tenant

Mr. McFarlane: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) that it would be quite improper to take into account the personal circumstances of the tenant if one did not at the same time take into account the personal circumstances of the landlord, because in many of these instances the person who is called the landlord is often a principal tenant who is letting furnished rooms. Even if it were not so, if we allowed the tribunal to consider the private personal circumstances of one of the parties to the action, we ought to make similar allowance to the other party. However, the subsection does neither. As I understand it, it does not commit the tribunal to consider the personal circumstances of either the landlord or the tenant. All the tribunal have to take into account are the conditions appertaining to the letting, and those conditions are confined to the contractual relationship and not to the private relationship of either party. I thought I made that perfectly clear on the Committee stage. In fact, it would be almost impossible for a tribunal to assess the subjective factors in such a case. They could not weigh in their scales the degree of misery or happiness that might be occasioned to this or that person by whatever decision they reached. Those are not matters for a tribunal. I cannot imagine any tribunal to which they would be relevant.

Sir J. Mellor: But as reputable opinion in this House, and from the right hon. Gentleman's own side, expressed the diametrically opposite view to the one he has just expressed, would it not be wise when this has to be interpreted by lay tribunals to make it quite clear in the terms of the subsection?

Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, it is clear. I give the assurance that if it is not clear, we shall certainly make it clearer than it is now. As I understand it, there is no doubt at all about the construction which can be placed on the words, but if the words are capable of bearing any other construction than the one I placed on them during Committee stage, I will certainly alter them.

Mr. Molson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the undertaking that if there is any doubt about the proper interpretation to put upon the wording of the statute, he will be willing to effect such an Amendment as will make it perfectly plain to the lay tribunals. My only other point is that the Minister said that he did not think it was the task of these tribunals to try to arrive at any balance of happiness or misery as between the landlord and the tenant. He went on to say that he could not imagine that that was the task of any kind of tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: I should like to have my words correctly represented. When I am speaking about happiness or misery I mean happiness or misery in relationship to private circumstances; happiness or misery, of course, in relation to whether they are being tied together in the same letting, because it is part of the duty of the tribunal to consider whether any further tenancy should be accorded having regard to the impact of one family on the other family sharing similar accommodation. The tribunal would have to take that into account. I was speaking about the private circumstances of the landlord or the tenant and not such circumstances as may arise out of the contractural matter which is the subject of arbitration.

Mr. Molson: I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to open his HANSARD at this column tomorrow morning and read through what he has just said and then put himself into the position of the numerous tribunals all through the country who are expecting to understand the Bill and put upon the Bill exactly the construction the Minister has been at such pains to explain to the House. It will be extremely difficult for them to do so. The Minister made a very interesting and valuable contribution because it goes a long way towards elucidating what is in

his mind about this. I was about to say that as regards the general Rent Restrictions Acts a balance of this kind is exactly what the courts of law have to try to arrive at. Under a number of the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, the county court judges have to exercise their discretion in order to decide whether giving the possession of the house to the landlord would or would not cause a greater hardship than refusing to do so. Therefore, in view of the fact that in administering the Rent Restrictions Acts the courts are actually required to use a discretion and to try to arrive at a balance of that kind, there is nothing unreasonable or improbable in the tribunals set up under the Bill thinking that they are under a similar obligation. All this, therefore, goes to show how entirely inadequate at present is the guidance being given in this Bill to the tribunals who are expected to administer it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I only intervene because, for once in a way, I find myself largely in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I should like that to be noted because it is unusual. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that the present subsection is perfectly clear without the Amendment being added. At the same time I think he will agree that there is nothing in that Amendment in any way contrary to the view which he holds in regard to the way in which tribunals should act under this subsection. In view of the fact, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) in Committee interpreted the subsection apparently entirely differently from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted it, it seems to me that there is an argument for clarification.
The right hon. Gentleman takes the view that the personal circumstances of the individual landlord or tenant are in no way brought in under the Clause as it stands, and if the hon. Member for Edge Hill, who we would all agree is a Member of considerable intelligence, takes the view he did that the circumstances of the tenant could be a relevant factor, there is some difference of interpretation which might be taken up by lay tribunals. After all, if there is any doubt, it would be


the most human thing in the world for lay tribunals to begin to consider the personal circumstances of a landlord or tenant, if they thought they could do it under this Clause because those are the sort of things which affect ordinary people. Although I do not press it strongly, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—because he has pointed out that later on if there is any doubt he will have that doubt clarified, and as in the Committee stage there was that doubt—that we might have this Amendment accepted, since it would sweep away all doubt and would also give us the hope that sometimes we can get an Amendment accepted by the other side if it is a reasonable one.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Naturally the Minister, having given an assurance, we accept that, but I would draw his attention to the words used both by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). The former said:
As I understand it, the wording of the subsection would leave it open to the tribunal to have regard to the circumstances of the tenant if they regarded that as a relevant matter on the issue of what was a reasonable rent for the premises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1045.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Northwich said:
I submit…that it is necessary to introduce particular words in order to bring the tribunal's mind to the factors which they can take into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1055.]
This is not a jumped-up suggestion, it is a matter on which we received a Ruling from the Minister during the Committee stage, but which we think it desirable if possible to incorporate in the statute. The Minister has indicated that he will examine it and, if there is any shadow of doubt, he will incorporate words to deal with it. In the circumstances, perhaps my hon. Friends may see their way to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out "to the

tenant making,"and to insert "at the time of."
This is a drafting Amendment in view of the Amendment made in the Committee stage permitting the landlord to appeal to the tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(6) The Minister may make rules for the guidance of the tribunal in determining under this section what rent is reasonable for a dwelling-house.
Rules made for the purpose of this subsection shall be of no effect unless they are approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
This Amendment relates to a matter which we have been pressing all through the Committee stage and all through this stage. I am bound to say that whenever the right hon. Gentleman has intervened, or has answered a question we have put to him, on almost each occasion it has been apparent that he wished the tribunal only to be guided by the same kind of considerations by which we on this side of the House desire the tribunal to be influenced, and he has now given us an assurance that if there is any real doubt that the wording of the Bill does not give sufficient guidance to the tribunal, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that that guidance is given. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the position of these tribunals, appointed chiefly because of their local knowledge and without any legal or business training, must necessarily make them particularly subject to the impression made upon them by the hard cases which come before them.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he does not consider that the conditions of either the tenant or the landlord are relevant for the purposes of this Bill. He said that it relates actually to the character of the tenancy. On an earlier Amendment it was quite obvious that he and I do not take the same view as to the meaning of that, but at any rate we are both agreed that it is not the intention of the Bill that the tribunals should, for example, consider whether a tenant in his individual circumstances can afford to pay more than a certain rent. If the economic rent for that property is higher than that tenant can afford to pay, then


the economic conditions of the tenant would not, as I understand the Minister, be a reason for reducing the reasonable rent below the rent which could fairly be charged for accommodation of that size and quality. The fact that some of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman have taken a different view; the fact that in the case of the Rent Restriction Acts the question of hardship has to be taken into account by the county court judges—surely these things make it plain that unless clear guidance is given to the tribunals a number of them may take these irrelevant considerations into account.
I should be impressed if the Minister said that it is extremely difficult to find a form of words in a statute which will correctly and accurately express what he has in mind. It is not usual for the Conservative Party to propose giving rule-making powers to a government; still less to the present Government, and least of all when it is the Minister of Health to whom the powers are proposed to be given. I hope, however, that he will accept this as a compliment to his integrity in this matter for it will enable him to convey to the tribunals the considerations which during the course of Debate it has become apparent that he has in mind. Let him not be craven or fear that power is being thrust upon him. We offer him this opportunity of giving wise and kindly guidance to the tribunals as to what is reasonable. His own reputation is such that no one could draft regulations more happily in order to produce a reasonable result. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Marlowe: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has invited the right hon. Gentleman not to be craven in taking powers upon himself. I cannot help feeling that that is a superfluous invitation for I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has never been afraid of taking power. My fear has always been that he was anxious to take too much. This is an Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman should pay some attention. I do not know what will be his reaction but, knowing well his

sense of his own infallibility, I feel it is hardly likely that he will be accommodating.
The right hon. Gentleman must remember that here he is setting up a new process of tribunal which, in a sense, will be running parallel with the county courts in administering the law of property affected by the Act. Unless some guidance is given to these lay tribunals I fear that there will be a complete absence of uniformity and that different decisions and rulings are likely to be given, not only by the different tribunals in different parts of the country, but also by the county courts. In administering this very complicated part of the law, county courts, of course, are guided not by rules established in this way but by cases, such as those referred to by my hon. Friend, by requirements in the principal Act and also by the long series of case law which has become binding upon the county courts.
All this is very important, because the right hon. Gentleman has to bear it in mind in relation to the absence of appeal in these cases. In administering the principal Act the decisions of county courts have been subject to appeal. Therefore, the appeal courts have provided a channel through which the law from all over the country has been brought into one stream. By this means uniformity has been ensured. The absence of appeal from these tribunals will have a considerable effect in allowing the administration of the Act to become diversified. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that some guidance should be given so that tribunals may be able to arrive at conclusions which will not be too dissimilar in different parts of the country.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember particularly that these are lay tribunals and are, therefore, all the more likely to take differing views. I suppose, quite apart from my arguments regarding case law and the Court of Appeal, that if all the tribunals were administered by lawyers or by persons of legal training the tendency would be for uniformity, but with lay tribunals there is no common ground upon which they can build. The results will be most unfortunate if we find, for instance, a tribunal in Cornwall coming to one decision while another tribunal in Durham arrives at precisely


the opposite conclusion. That sort of consequence will be bad, not only for the tenant who is involved, but for the administration of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman may well find his Act being brought into disrepute and, therefore, becoming all the more difficult to administer. In these circumstances I hope he will think it right at least to make the attempt to secure uniformity by giving guidance from this House.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I hope the Minister will not concede this point because, in my view, the whole purpose of the construction of this particular form of tribunal will be very seriously affected and we may find different people interpreting the rules just as differently from each other as it is possible for them to interpret the actual provisions of the Act. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) knows very well that there is no question of appealing on a matter of fact on cases which come within the provisions of the Rent Acts. The county court judge decides and, if the facts are such as he decides they are, there is an end to the matter, except in so far as the law is concerned. On a question of law there is an appeal to the divisional court anyhow from these tribunals.
I do not understand, therefore, why any further rules are required, except, perhaps, if hon. Gentlemen are arguing that the tribunals are not as capable as county court judges to decide these issues. In my opinion, and with the greatest respect to judges in county courts, the tribunals are equally capable, because they visit the actual houses involved, make the fullest inquiries, and have much more time and opportunity of coming to decisions as to the actual circumstances of a particular house which comes within the provisions of these Acts. This other point has to be borne in mind. To wait for rules and to interpret those rules will entail a considerable length of time. The purpose of these provisions is to obtain people with local knowledge, who understand the situation in every case which comes before them and who go out of their way to examine that situation before they arrive at conclusions.
I think the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) was wrong in stating that the existing Acts permitted judges to decide what was hardship in relation to rent.

Mr. Molson: I said "possession," not "rent."

Mr. Janner: That is an entirely different matter. This is a question not of hardship, but of a reasonable rental for a dwelling-house.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The extension would be.

Mr. Janner: The extension of what?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The extension of tenancy.

Mr. Janner: Surely, the tenant, coming himself before a tribunal of this nature which has a limited power—it is not, of course, an indefinite power—is not placed in precisely the same position as a person who goes to court and claims possession on the ground that his hardship is greater than that of the tenant. That is not the purpose of this Amendment at all.

Mr. Marlowe: Would not the hon. Member agree that the result of security of tenure is in fact to give an answer on the question of possession? The tenant is securing possession as against the landlord.

Mr. Janner: That is carrying the matter very much further than——

Mr. Molson: That is what the Measure says.

Mr. Janner: No, it is carrying the argument very much further than the one adduced in regard to a judge deciding which is the greater measure of hardship. An Amendment of this nature would tie the hands of the tribunals very considerably and would result in considerable delays which are not justified.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) spoke in such seductive terms that I found my will almost failing me at one point, when it was restored by the belligerency of his colleague the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). I am now in full possession of my former resolution, and I am therefore much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Brighton for protecting me from the snares into which his colleague was luring me.
Nothing could be worse for the administration of this Measure than to accept the Amendment, because once we


began laying down a whole series of directions for the tribunals we should open up possibilities of all kinds of actions claiming that decisions of tribunals were ultra vires in this or that respect because they had not paid attention to this or that direction. The result would be that before long we should have a whole crop of cases in the courts, and the work of the tribunals would be frustrated. That is the main reason why I cannot accept the Amendment.
I listened with some trepidation to the argument put forward by the Opposition. We discussed this point in Committee over and over again. If they had their way they would render this Bill abortive. It is all very well saying, as was said in the previous Debate, that there should be appeals against the decisions of the courts in order that justice might be done. We know very well that the machinery of justice can become so cluttered up that justice is practically withheld. Therefore we must maintain a balance.
Is the machinery effective for the purpose which we have in mind? It is no use to say, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, that different decisions will be reached in different parts of the country. Of course they will, but it rarely happens that circumstances repeat themselves. It is precisely because that is the fact in this particular class of case that it is the practice of county courts to decide on the facts, and as my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) pointed out, an appeal does not lie against county court decisions in respect of facts. Facts do not fit themselves into formulae. They are not capable of condification. Statutes, usages and wants are, but facts are not; they do not repeat themselves sufficiently to give rise to a system by which they can be classified. Nothing can be more varied than the circumstances in which people rent furnished lettings; nothing can be more varied than the relationship which may exist between a landlord and those occupying furnished lettings.
We have already pointed out that it is necessary to give tribunals the power to terminate the lettings because the conditions may cause such friction that security of tenure should not be given indefinitely. That is precisely what we have decided.

The lives of two sets of personalities sharing the same kind of particular accommodation can become so painful that their relationship ought to be terminated. The tribunals can do that, and it has nothing to do with the financial circumstances of the people concerned. It would not be fair to force the landlord to subsidise a tenant because that tenant would be unable to afford what would be a reasonable rent for the accommodation, and it is not intended that that should be the case. There is no reason why I should put that kind of obiter dicta in a regulation, because that is how reasonable people would behave and would consider was what the law intended.
I must defend this Bill from the continual attempt to widen the terms of reference in such a way as to provide all kinds of grounds for fruitful litigation—fruitful for the legal profession but extremely painful, and in the last analysis completely frustrating to the individuals needing the protection of the Bill. I hope that in the light of the reasons I have given the Opposition will not press this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Just conceive
the case which the Minister has put before the House. He says that the financial circumstances of the tenant as against the landlord should not be taken into account. He said, "I refuse to draw up rules which would embody this." But he has just undertaken to the House to draw up a formula to put it in the statute. The Minister does not seem to realise that we are seeking to enable landlord and tenant, or a better phrase would be "property purveyor and property consumer," because the word "landlord" seems to bring up in the right hon. Gentleman's mind a picture of some duke with battlements and a portcullis——

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman really must not say that. I have specifically said on many occasions in the course of the passage of this Bill and of the 1946 Act that in a large number of cases the term "landlord" is usually applicable to a person who is the principal tenant and who lets to another tenant. Therefore, I am perfectly conscious of the fact that we are here dealing with a number of people who are more or less in the same social


stratum. It is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who seems to imagine that they are in some kind of social stratum which can afford the expense of interminable litigation.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman's subconscious governs his whole being and actions. He explains these things with his mouth but his heart thinks differently. The word "landlord" does not raise in his mind these pictures of the humble people he has mentioned. One can see his cheeks flush, one can hear his voice take on a deeper boom and can see his chest take on a greater amplitude. The word "landlord" raises some Freudian bruise and rubs upon it in his subconscious and makes him quite oblivious to those considerations of reason which he quite rightly does his best to recapture from time to time for the purposes of debate in this House.
The right hon. Gentleman continues to adduce to this House a set of arguments which really run quite contrary to the whole of the well-recognised systems of justice not merely of this country but of all countries. He says that it is undesirable to have cases in any way coordinated, that facts are not capable of codification. In these days, when regulations are extremely numerous, any one of us may happen to find ourselves under the sway of the court for some infringement. Indeed, we might find ourselves unjustly accused of even greater crime. I wonder, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you would like to be brought before a committee of people down the street who happen to know you and some of whom might happen to——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is placing me in a most awkward position.

5.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will take the spears in my own bosom, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can imagine myself being brought before a number of people down the street who might happen to know me and dislike me. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman being brought before a committee of people down his street who might happen to know him and who, astonishing as it may seem, might happen to dislike him, and then tried on some grave charge on the

grounds that he had been guilty, in their opinion, of an anti-social action. In those circumstances I should like the conditions under which I was to be convicted to be a little more precise than merely such as would appear to a reasonable group of people to be reasonable in the circumstances.
That is all that is being given to the tribunals. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that only the speech matters. It is really not so. We have to take into account not only that justice should be done, but that justice should seem to be done, and that a similar set of circumstances should seem to lead to a similar decision. Facts are not exact but they are more or less nearly exact. They can be brought into some sort of rough harmony. I suggest that the tribunals, without any appeal, with no direction from Parliament, with no direction from the Minister, may easily fall into exactly the same conflict of view which led the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) to construe the same Section in this statute in diametrically opposite terms on the Floor of this House only a few days ago. I do not think it is an exaggeration to suggest or to say that some of what the Minister calls obiter dicta should be brought under some form of review and be subject in some way to Parliament. The Minister is in charge of a great Department. He knows what the Department will do, formally or informally. People discuss these matters. Obiter dicta are given. What we ask—

Mr. Bevan: Oh, no, Sir. The words of the right hon. Gentleman usually breed words, but now he is breeding a lot of naughty ideas. It is not true to say that the Minister of Health gives directions or interpretations of the statute. It would be entirely improper, and I should be unhappy to think that when he was Minister of Health he was guilty of such indiscretions. I do no such things. The tribunals are statutory bodies appointed under the statute. It is their function to interpret it. It seems to me quite nonsensical for one lot of reasonable men to tell another lot of reasonable men what the first lot of reasonable men thought to be reasonable.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Sometimes I am dumbfounded by the Minister's acute knowledge; his realisation of the world; his acquaintance with all the circumstances of our modern life. And sometimes I am equally astonished by the kind of ivory tower in which he seems to live. To suppose that people who have the honour to be placed, who have a duty—an irksome duty—imposed upon them by being placed on these tribunals, will never read what others of them are deciding in other parts of the country; will never begin to discuss the matter with each other; will never try to extract from some high official whether that official thinks they are, or they are not, proceeding on the right lines, suggests a degree of cloistered seclusion which would be remarkable in a set of Trappist monks; but in the case of ordinary people going about this world, is totally devoid of any contact with reality. The fact that some form of convergence of opinion will somehow arise on these matters is absolutely inevitable. All we ask is that, somehow or other, this Parliament, which

is placing an enormous blank form before these people and asking them to fill it up, should have some opportunity to consider whether in fact the decisions which are being given and the penalties which are being placed on fellow-citizens, are such as we here would desire.

This seems to us so simple and straightforward and self-evident that we cannot understand why the Minister is resisting it. We feel that at this point, somehow or other, his acute mind is slipping a cog; that his clutch is slipping; that it is not biting upon the question. We can do no more than appeal to the arbitrament of the Lobby. We trust that we shall succeed in obtaining such support from his own side as may succeed in overpowering him and making him feel afterwards that on this occasion, Parliament has been wiser than the Minister.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 158.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[531 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewingr, I. L.


Astor, Hon. M
Hollis, M. C.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Peto, Brig C. H. M


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson., Roland


Boyd-Carpcnter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


.Bratlhwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Kendall, W. D.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Sanderson, Sir F.


Byers, Frank
Langford-Holt, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Challen, C
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Smithers, Sir W


'Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lannox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Studholme, H. G.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Maodonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't"n, S.)


De Ia Bère, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor,Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Molson, A. H. E.
York, C.


Gammans, L. D
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Colonel Wheatley and




Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bacon, Miss A.
Benson, G.


Albu, A. H.
Balfour, A.
Berry, M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Barstow, P. G
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allon, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barton, C.
Bing, G. H. C.


Attewell, H. C.
Battley, J. R.
Blackburn, A. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bechervaise, A. E.
Blenkinsop, A.


Ayles, W. H
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W




Bramall, E. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Janner, B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jenkins, R. H.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Ross, William (Kilmanock)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Sargood, R.


Burden, T. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Segal, Dr. S


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kinley, J.
Sharp, Granville


Champion, A. J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G. R
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Simmons, C. J.


Cocks, F. S.
Lyne, A. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P.
McAdam, W.
Skinnard, F. W


Collins, V. J
McEntee, V La T
Smit'h, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
McGhee, H. G
Solley, L. J


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Mack, J. D
Sorensen, R. W


Cove, W. G
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Daines, P.
McLeavy, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sylvester, G. O


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Symonds, A. L.


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Tiffany, S.


Farthing, W. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Titterington, M. F


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Tolley, L.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W.
Vernon, Maj W F


Gibbins, J.
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moyle, A.
Walkden, E


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Murray, J. D.
Warbey, W. N.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parker, J
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Guy, W. H
Parkin, B. T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pearson, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Harrison, J.
Piratin, P.
Willis, E.


Haworth, J.
Popplewell, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Harbison, Miss M
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Woodburn, Rt Hon. A


Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Yates, V. F.


Holman, P.
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.



Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reeves, J.
Mr. Hannan and


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Mr. George Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "house," to the end of line 43, and to insert:

"(a) while it is under the management of a housing association within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1936 (including a development corporation established under the New Towns Act, 1946), or
(b) while any limitation of the rent is in force, being a limitation imposed by or under any enactment not contained in the principal Acts or this Act."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are you not selecting the Amendment in page 2, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(6) In determining under this Section what rent is reasonable for a dwelling-house which has been erected or made available by the conversion into self-contained dwelling-houses of another dwelling-house since the first day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine the tribunal shall have regard to the cost of construction during the same period of houses or flats affording comparable accommodation to the dwelling-house in question by the local authority for the area in which the dwelling-house is situated.

I understood from previous inquiry that it might be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it has been decided not to select it in view of the discussions which have already taken place.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The Amendment in line 42 covers the point raised in Committee that it was not precisely clear what types of houses would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. Already it is clear that housing under the management of a housing association is excluded, and we are now seeking to exclude houses managed by development corporations under the New Towns Act. We also seek to include a provision covering houses which are let at a rent limited by statute other than the Rent Restrictions Acts or this Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As we understand it, this excludes from the ambit of this Act a considerable number of houses


Could the Minister give a rough estimate of the gross weight of housing which is likely to be affected by this provision. The numbers taken out of this Bill and the numbers remaining, have a considerable bearing on the possibility of some sort of free market being left in housing.

Mr. Bevan: The largest number would be the houses that are to be built under the New Towns Act. I could not give the figure involved at the moment. There are also the houses built under licence where the rents have already been fixed. I could give the latter figure later, perhaps, but I could not give it now.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should be grateful if the Minister can give some estimate later. A great deal depends on the successive slices of housing which are being considered under this statute. It would be of interest if the Minister could give an estimate of the number which might be brought within this subsection next year or the year following.

Mr. Bevan: Not today.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to have an estimate given when the Bill is considered by another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:
() In relation to a dwelling-house or property let at a progressive rent, subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect with the substitution, for references to the rent at which the dwelling-house or property was let, of references to the maximum rent under the letting.
Here again, we are meeting a point raised in Committee where some doubt was expressed concerning the position when there was a progressive rent about precisely what rent would be taken into account. Here we make it clear that where a dwelling-house is let at a progressive rent, it should be the maximum rent which it can reach which should be taken into account for this purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it was the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), who is not here at the moment, who raised this point. Really he raised it with the idea of showing that an active minded landlord in the past could have driven a coach and four through the provisions

in this respect. It seems that it rather puts a premium on the smart fellow. Many decent people have let property at small rents for various reasons—the blitz, from mere friendship or from charity to some unfortunate. Now the stamp comes down upon them and those are the standard rents for ever more. If these people had had an echeloned rent which would rise in future by steps to what might seem at the time unreasonable heights, they would have got away with it.
All this seems to make it desirable to give the tribunal the power to do for the ordinary person—not a "smart Alec," not the person advised by a clever lawyer—what the Minister is now writing into the statute should be secured by somebody who was clever enough when the rent was originally fixed to say, "The rent is small now, but we lay it down that it is to go up by successive stages to what might be a suitable height." I call it to the attention of hon. Members that it is the final peak to which the rent rises which is being taken as the standard rent, whereas the ordinary simple person who let a house at a low rent is caught for ever more at a rent which may be quite out of relation to the economic value of the property of which the tenant has possession.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 2.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PREMIUMS, ETC., WHERE SECTION 1 APPLIES.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 5, leave out "applicant," and insert "tenant."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out "applicant." and insert "tenant."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Why has the alteration been made? What was the matter with the word "applicant," and why should "tenant" be inserted now?

Mr. Blenkinsop: This is consequential on an Amendment in the Committee stage, which permitted the landlord to appear at the tribunal.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is what I thought. I must call attention to the important change now being made, as far as we can see, in response to an Amendment from this side of the House


giving the landlord also the right to appear before the tribunal. That is a fundamental change, and one which will broaden out along the lines of the argument which I have been addressing to the Committee. These are drafting changes, but they do indicate throughout the Bill that the tenant is not the only person who has the right of access to the tribunal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 3, leave out "applicant," and insert "tenant."

In line 4, after "section," insert:
and in Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act.

In line 8, leave out from "rent," to end of line 9.

In line 19, at end, insert:
and the last foregoing subsection shall have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection.

In line 33, at end, insert:
but subject to the provisions of Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act."— [Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 3.—(PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNMENT OF TENANCY.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, at the end, to insert:
being a tenancy to which the principal Acts apply.
This is rather more than drafting; it is an attempt at clarification. I think the matter was raised by one hon. Member during the Committee stage, and it was felt desirable to clarify this Clause by the insertion of these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out "or renewal," and to insert "renewal or assignment."
I suggest that, while discussing this Amendment, it would be convenient also to consider the two following ones: In page 5, line 17 leave out "or renewal," and insert "renewal or assignment."
In page 5, line 20, after "renewal," insert:
or with the date on which the assignment before the commencement of this Act took effect.

We thought the Minister might be willing to meet us on this point, because, as far as we can see, the new Clause which was introduced by the Minister in Committee had an unlooked-for effect. A landlord could not in future assign a tenancy with a premium, whereas an assignee who had paid a premium could, in turn, pass on a portion of it to a second assignee, but only where the original payment was being continued or renewed. Thus, if a house was let at a premium in 1945 and assigned also at a premium in 1949, a proportion of that premium could be passed on in 1950, but, if it were let at a premium in 1938 and was assigned by A to B in 1946, no part of that premium could be passed on to a third assignee. I do not know whether the Minister is seized of the point, which is one of those rather intricate matters which arise out of the power of the tenant to pass on this premium from one to another. If the right hon. Gentleman could indicate that he will meet the point or will look at it further, we should be ready to let it go at that.

Mr. Bevan: I am sure hon. Members will recollect that the Amendment which I introduced during the Committee stage was a consequence of pressure brought to bear upon me very largely from the other side. I had to consider this matter in framing the Bill, and I wanted to get the benefit of the views of the Committee before I altered the Bill at all. It was suggested that, whereas the Bill made it illegal, and, indeed, so did the principal Act, for a landlord to charge a premium to a tenant, the latter, in his turn as assignor, could charge a premium. Why on earth, it was asked, should a tenant be allowed to do something which a landlord was not permitted to do? I took the point, and I have amended the Bill accordingly.
I appreciated, and I hope the Committee did, the full consequences of this amendment of the law. The situation was that one person had paid a premium, and, in his turn, charged a premium to the next tenant. That is the effect of it. The simple answer to that case is that we have got to stop somewhere. We would not obliterate the hardship to the person who had paid the premium by permitting him to pass that hardship on to someone else; we would merely perpetuate


the hardship. What we were trying to do was to make it impossible for people to charge for the mere fact of occupancy, for that is what the premium is being charged for. It is perfectly true that a person who has paid a sum of money may then want to leave the premises, for any reason whatever, but cannot charge that premium to anyone else coming in. Of course, that person can only recover by imposing on the assignee the hardship which it is the whole purpose of the Bill to avoid. There is no way out of it.
This is largely a consequence of the lack of housing accommodation, and, as housing accommodation increases, the charging of premiums for mere occupancy disappears too. Although I appreciate the hurt that happens when the axe falls, the axe must fall somewhere if we are to prevent what has been regarded by everybody as an injustice being indefinitely perpetuated. In these circumstances, I hope the Opposition will not press their Amendment, because its effect would be completely negative to what they asked for on the Committee stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again with the leave of the House. I would not agree with the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that it is true that we have to make an end somewhere, but we thought it would be possible to shade it down more than the present arrangement allows. I think it is still possible to consider that the person who comes in may well be getting a property at a lower rent than he would have got it if this lump sum had not been paid at the beginning. In the circumstances, and as we have still a good deal of work to get through, we shall not insist on our Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: in page 5, line 13 after "Section," insert:
but subject to the provisions of Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act."—

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from "assignment," to the end of the line, and to insert:
of that tenancy or any subsequent tenancy of the same dwelling-house.

This Clause is, in fact, a clarification of the wording in the Bill, and which was discussed on the Committee stage. I think the hon. Member for Weston-super Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing) asked whether the wording could be looked at again to see if some clarification could be made. This is the result of those endeavours.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 16 after second "the," insert "said";

In line 17 leave out "of the tenancy";

In line 21 at end, insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not have effect where since the said grant, continuance or renewal the landlord has granted a tenancy of the dwelling-house under which, as against the landlord, a person became entitled to possession other than the person who was so entitled to possession of the dwelling-house immediately before that tenancy began.

In line 23 leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, after "dwelling-house," to insert:
or in the provision of additional or improved fixtures or fittings therein (not being expenditure on decorations or repairs).
This is a very modest Amendment, which I hope the Minister will accept. It is, roughly speaking, the allowance for what one might term modernisation. An extra payment can be obtained, but it is limited to sums incurred in carrying out any structural alterations of the dwelling-house. The person in question may have incurred expenditure of substantial sums which benefits the person who is coming in. but which does not actually come under the heading of structural alterations. We have followed the precedent of Section 7 of the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933, which enables a landlord to raise the rent by a percentage on account of expenditure incurred by him on what might be termed modernisation. It seems to me that it is to the benefit of everyone that a continuous process like this should be kept up so that the danger of making a charge on somebody coming in should not obviate the possibility of the occupier carrying out improvements which will obviously be to the benefit of the next person who enters the house.
As the House will see, we have not actually put in expenditure on decorations


or repairs because, theoretically, the tenant should be able to recover that cost from the landlord if it is the landlord and not the tenant who is responsible for them under the contract. But on the point about which the Minister spoke of the axe coming down, it is most inadvisable that it should shear away the possibility of recovering perfectly reasonable expenditure which is to the benefit of all concerned who are going to use the property. For fear of the fall of this axe, some tenants may either seek to avoid making such changes or make them in a way which would enable him to carry away all the improvements upon which he had embarked instead of leaving them, as they normally should be left, for the benefit of the next person coming in to enjoy the premises.

Mr. Bevan: There is no difference between us in this respect. We have shared the same intention, but my advice is that the words proposed to be put into the Bill are not necessary, and that it is already possible for an assignor to charge for the items described in the Amendment. But under Clause 4, we do, of course, take power to prevent excessive prices being charged because, as hon. Members know, it is the practice to charge extravagant amounts of money for very small amenities. That would be merely a way of concealing the demanding of a premium. Therefore, in order that a perfectly proper charge should be made, but that it should not be a disguise for a premium, power is taken to prevent excessive charges being made. I was asked in Committee—and I am now doing it—to include fittings among the things for which quite excessive prices cannot be charged. I am informed that the Bill already does what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants, and we, by our protective Clause, prevent it from becoming exploited by unscrupulous persons.

Mr. J. H. Hare: We on this side would like a little further elaboration of this matter. As we see it, the assignor can only recover sums incurred in the carrying out of structural alterations to a dwelling-house. With great respect, I should have thought that the Minister has not met us on this. As we see it at the moment, if a tenant were to put in a new boiler, radiators, and so

on, in order to replace an out-of-date hot water system, it would not be possible under the Measure for the assignor to say that those improvements were in any way structural alterations because they were, in fact, replacements. Surely, the same thing would apply to a lot of items of expenditure such as the replacement of an existing bath, the retiling of a bathroom, the fitting of a series of beautiful chromium taps, and so on, all of which might be put into replace something that was out of date. Such items would not come under the term "structural alteration." Structural alteration, as I understand it—of course, I am not a member of the legal profession—implies something that is structurally altered in the house.

Mr. Bevan: There is never any need for the House to quarrel about the language, so long as we are satisfied about the intention, but it must always be taken for granted that the spokesman of the Government is being perfectly sincere in saying, "I think this language does what you want it to do. If it does not, we will make it do that." I give an undertaking that I shall look at the words, and that, if they cannot be construed in the way I have described, I shall see to it that in another place they are so construed.

Mr. Hare: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. It seemed to me, as a layman, that the courts might not be able to read into these words what the Minister means. I shall not detain the House any longer, because I am satisfied with the Minister's assurance.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks. The Minister cannot undertake that his language will do what he wants it to do; he can only undertake that his language will try to do it. More than once we have indicated that these matters are so complex that it would be better for the Minister to retain a little latitude in this respect; we have offered him the opportunity of making rules, which he has turned down. I still think that there is a real possibility of some people who have to thread their way through this jungle losing their way. However, we must accept the Minister's assurance that these words will be examined in another place to see whether


they can be made clear beyond a peradventure.
We in this House understand what we want statutes to do, but the purpose of writing a statute is to enable people outside the House to understand. We on this side of the House are by no means clear that we are writing down words which will be construed outside in exactly the sense in which we wish them to be construed. However, we naturally accept the Minister's assurance that in another. place these words will be scrutinised more closely. The Minister is being very vigorous in submitting Amendments; up to last Thursday he was still bringing out Amendments to the statute, which indicates the complexity of the subject. Whether between now and the Bill reaching another place the Minister will be able to improve the language is a matter upon which we can only share the optimistic hope of the Minister. I still say that as we proceed through this statute we find ourselves, even in this House, in difficulties in interpreting it, and I am sure that those outside will find their difficulties greater and greater as time goes on.

Mr. Marlowe: In view of what the Minister has said, I should like to make one suggestion, since we shall not have a further opportunity of commenting on any of the alterations which the right hon. Gentleman makes. I suggest that the simplest thing would be to insert a definition Clause defining what is intended by the words "structural alterations" as they, now appear in the Bill. If he would state the things which he intends to be covered by "structural alterations" that would clarify the situation and would assist the tribunal. As has already been said, this Measure will have to be construed by a lay tribunal; I should have thought that as the Bill is at present worded, "structural alterations" would not include the kind of things to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 6, line 9, to leave out "or."
This Amendment, together with the Amendment in line 15, to insert paragraph

(d), makes special provision for those cases where shops or other premises —offices, for example—are provided together with residential premises, and where it has been suggested that this might prevent the proper charging for goodwill. This Amendment makes clear that any doubt about the question of charging for goodwill is removed and that reasonable goodwill may be charged for.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, at the end, to insert:
or
(d) where part of the dwelling-house is used as a shop or office, or for business, trade or professional purposes, of a reasonable amount in respect of any goodwill of the business, trade or profession, being goodwill transferred to the assignee in connection with the assignment or accruing to him in consequence thereof."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

6.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is the operative part of the provision, and this is the point at which the Minister is making a concession so that a charge may be made in those cases where part of a dwelling-house is used as a shop and part is used as a residence. One of the difficulties is that where a house has been used as a dwelling-house, that purpose transcends the purpose of a business. It might produce a very difficult situation if the goodwill could not in any way be charged for.
This again is an example of the difficult decisions which will fall upon the bodies interpreting this Measure:
…a reasonable amount in respect of any goodwill of the business, trade or profession, being goodwill transferred to the assignee in connection with the assignment …
I ask the House to consider the sort of problem which the bodies will have to decide in. these matters, without any particular indication from anybody of how they are to set about this problem. We have the Minister's touching belief that bodies in different parts of the country will on no occasion seek any guidance or have any consultation with any central body as to the lines upon which they are to operate during these complicated series of determinations.
I do not understand how the Minister feels that he can leave this problem in the way in which he is attempting to leave it. However, he is obstinate in his view and confident in the wisdom of the


bodies which he is setting up. All we can say is that, at any rate, this does something to remedy one of the anomalies which we pointed out at an earlier stage in the Bill, namely, that with the most legitimate desire in the world, the Minister might be confiscating the goodwill of some small business or some professional man, in his desire to avoid the payment of any kind of premium.
I trust that we have succeeded in picking up all the anomalies as we go through this Bill, although I greatly fear that we have not done so. The fact that this injustice is remedied at this very late stage in the Bill is enough to show the class of case which may slip through. I do not feel that we shall be leaving this statute in the condition in which we ought to leave a statute which refers so many intricate determinations to these lay bodies. However, this is a concession; we welcome it, and naturally we offer no opposition to it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hesitate to say anything which may disturb the harmony of the proceedings, but in view of what the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut. - Colonel Elliot) has said about clearing up injustices and anomalies, I feed bound to say that the present Amendment, although I have no objection to it at all and will cheerfully support it, seems to me not to clear up any anomaly or injustice at all. It seems to be completely unnecessary except to satisfy the misconceived fears and suspicions of hon. Members opposite. What this Bill does is to order that premiums, where they are unreasonable, shall be returned—no more than that. But for suggestions which have been made in this House, nobody would ever have thought that when a man pays for the goodwill attaching to a profession or a trade or a business in connection with certain premises, it was ever a premium to which the Bill applied at all.
I have no objection to further clarifications as we go along, especially as we are now near the end of the Bill and, presumably, near the end of the further Amendments and clarifications which seem to me to have been quite unnecessarily demanded, but I should have thought that this was a perfectly clear case, but for the doubts cast upon it from the other side of the House, of an injustice

or anomaly that would never have been caused if the Bill had been left entirely unamended on this point.

Mr. Janner: There are two points I want to make. The first is the question of what the Minister means by the phrase:
… or accruing to him in consequence thereof.
I am anxious, as I am sure is the whole House, that the Bill should be as clear as it possibly can be, despite the difficulties arising from its complexities. One can understand goodwill transferred to an assignee in connection with an assignment, but what is meant by "or accruing to him"? I think the words should be:
… and accruing to him in consequence thereof.
If the words are left as at present the implication is that one can be called upon to pay for a goodwill which has no value at all to an assignee once the goodwill is transferred. Suppose the business at the premises was connected with furniture and the assignee wanted to open a fried fish shop there. There would be no goodwill attached to that business for the person who took over the premises, although he had paid for goodwill. A premium is being allowed in respect of something for which no value or consideration has been given.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose——

Mr. Janner: I shall have no objection to giving way if I am allowed to finish what I want to say. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) can then ask what he wants to ask. The second point I want to make is with regard to the question of assessing goodwill. I want the Minister to answer this point, because it has been raised by one of the Leicester tribunals. Will the tribunal be in a position to engage an expert valuer? Will the tribunal be entitled to examine the accounts of the assignor before coming to a decision? It is an important point, because the tribunal itself will have to assess the value of the goodwill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I take it that an answer will be given to that point.

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has already said, the purpose of the Amendment is


to clear up what was a doubt in the minds of hon. Members opposite. We had no doubts at all as to what had to be done, but because of my normal amiability I said, "All right; we will put in a form of words which leaves no doubt." But, obviously, once the lawyers start niggling with it everything which clears up doubts leaves more doubts behind. The original wording was quite simple until we had this clearing up of doubts. Now the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), who can see a difficulty in a situation about which everybody else is perfectly clear, says, "What on earth can the tribunal do?" The tribunal can call for whatever evidence seems necessary in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. I should have thought the hon. Member for West Leicester knew that very well.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I may speak again only by leave of the House. I sympathise with the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) in being interrupted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not know whether he is on his feet or not; that explains much of his conduct which otherwise I should have thought discourteous. The point is that the hon. Member for West Leicester was saying that the tribunal was in doubt—

Mr. Bevan: With all respect, I suggest that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is abusing the courtesy of the House. We are not now in Committee and I am striving to keep my remarks to a minimum, but the right hon. and gallant Member has spoken three times on this Amendment. We are on the Report stage, not in Committee. I respectfully suggest to him that it is an abuse to take up each point which is made and deal with it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I merely continue my remarks. I think nobody could have been more reasonable than have been the Opposition in the discussion of this Measure this afternoon. No delay of any kind whatever has been caused. No undue Divisions have been called and our interventions have been merely for the purpose of clarifying the subject under discussion. I do not think anyone should

say that it is an abuse of the Rules of the House to attempt to clarify a statute which we are placing on the Statute Book. It was to that end alone that my observations were directed and that they seemed to be of use was borne out by the fact that the discussion has been carried on by two hon. Members on the Government side of the House, who are indebted for their opportunity to speak to the fact that we, the Opposition, caused this Amendment to be placed on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(EXCESSIVE PRICES FOR FURNI TURE, ETC., TO BE TREATED AS PREMIUMS.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, after "furniture," to insert "fittings."
Again, this Amendment is merely for clarification. It seeks to make it quite clear that fittings are intended to be included in this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(REGISTER OF DETERMINA TIONS OF TRIBUNAL UNDER FORE GOING SECTIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "and.";

In line 30, at end, insert:
and
(d) any certificate given by the Tribunal under Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move in page 8, line 36, at the end, to insert:
() Section eleven of the Act of 1946 (which provides for proving the contents of a register under that Act in any proceedings) shall apply to a register under this Section.
This is to provide machinery for making comparable provisions to those under the Act of 1946.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH OTHER PERSONS BUT NOT WITH LANDLORD.)

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, to leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 36, and to insert:
so much of the shared accommodation as is living accommodation.


Again, this is purely for clarification. There was some criticism of this Clause and we believe that this Amendment will enable us to get rather clearer wording.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I trust the Minister will not be so touchy on this occasion, when he finds it necessary, in the statute which he himself conceived and placed upon the Order Paper and has amended considerably on many occasions, to introduce an Amendment for clarification. I trust he will not regard it as some kind of lèse-majesté if the Opposition venture to intervene. We have no objection to this Amendment and we see no reason why it should not be made, but the Minister's view is that interventions by the Opposition are a kind of discourtesy. I think that is one view he would do well to withdraw.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 14.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 13, line 3, at the end, to insert:
and every such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.
The purpose of this Amendment is to reserve to the House, or to either House, some control over the regulations and orders made by the Minister. When a similar Amendment was moved during the Committee stage the Minister said he was unable to make any promises but he also said that he would look into the point again. He added:
…but we do not want to clutter up the Business of the House unnecessarily."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1253.]
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment would not have that effect, because we are proposing the negative procedure and nothing would occur in this House unless some hon. Members were dissatisfied with the drafting or the substance of the Regulations or Orders made by the Minister and, consequently, moved a Prayer within 40 days. I do not think the Minister need fear, therefore, that there would be any unnecessary cluttering up of the business of the House. I know that this Amendment is an improvement upon the provisions of the Act of 1946. I do not think that it should be regarded as objectionable, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has favourably

considered the proposal and will be able to agree to the Amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid my mind is the same as it was when this was discussed—I think quite adequately—in Committee. Eighty-three per cent. of the population is already covered by the tribunals under the existing procedure, and all that this Amendment would suggest is that the remaining 17 per cent. should be subject to this annulment procedure. That seems to be rather straining at a gnat a little. If it were necessary to do this it should have been done before. This Bill is for the setting up of tribunals, and indicates the districts they are to cover. I do not see how it can be argued that for the remaining parts of the country to be covered we should have a different procedure.

Sir J. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the provisions of Clause 6, by which he has power to make regulations with regard to the terms——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must ask hon. Members to obey the Rules of the House. If they wish to speak twice they must ask leave and obtain it.

Sir J. Mellor: I apologise. I was really only asking a question. May I ask that question? Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the position under Clause 6, because there he prescribes by regulations what local authorities are required to do in the preparation of the register?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Again, all the procedure with regard to the tribunals is, of course, of interest to us. I think it is true, as the Minister said, that a considerable portion of the country is covered by it. We had hoped that he would accept a previous Amendment of ours which would have enabled rules to be made by him; which would, of course, immediately bring up the very important question that these rules should be subject to Prayer. I think that the Minister is taking a completely different view from that which we are taking on this. We desire to register our point of view, but we dc not want unduly to delay the


House, and so I think, in the circumstances, we shall not divide the House, although we cannot withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 13, line 8, to leave out "Section eight," and to insert, "Sections four, eight and nine."
This Amendment is consequential upon the first of the Government's new Clauses.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We now come to what we may call the "tartan and heather" part of the Bill. Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate in what way the new Clause to which he referred will alter the position in Scotland? As he knows, the position in Scotland is not at all the same as it is in England. I think he himself has said that it is very doubtful whether this Bill will have any real application to Scotland at all.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I do not think that really arises out of this Amendment, because the Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment to bring in various Clauses in place of the ones originally there. With respect, I doubt very much whether on this drafting Amendment it would be in Order to go into the whole merits of the application of the Bill to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 11, leave out "Section six," and insert, "Sections three, six and seven."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This may not be quite the appropriate place, but at some point in this series of Amendments I think it would be only reasonable if the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State were to indicate how the Amendments which have been made, and which we are now applying to Scotland, bear upon the problem in Scotland. I think it is only reasonable that those who read our proceedings later should not have to dodge backwards and forwards through the report of our discussions to find the application of these Amendments. It should be possible to have a succinct explanation of the way in which these Amendments made in the Bill, now being made to apply to Scotland, will effect the position there.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Would it not be more convenient, if the Lord Advocate proposes to explain, for him to do so on the next Amendment which seems to have more substance in it?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am perfectly content with that suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in line 37, at the end, to insert:
(4) Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act shall have effect as if for subsection (3) there were substituted the following subsection—
'(3) In this Section the expression "reversion," in relation to the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy of a dwelling-house means the estate or interest in the dwelling-house, which immediately after the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy belonged to the immediate landlord of the tenant under the
tenancy.' 
This is also consequential. It brings the machinery Clause into being with a view to defining the term "reversion" so far as it applies to Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was only too ready to defer to your suggestion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that on some Amendment—it may be this or the next—some words of explanation should be given by the Secretary of State, but I do really think that in a matter so intricate, where the law differs so much in the two Kingdoms, such words of explanation should be given as to how these Amendments affect the position in Scotland. I do not think it is an unreasonable request to make, and I do trust that before we pass the Amendments relating to Scotland it will be possible for the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to give us some short survey of the matter.

Mr. Woodburn: I am not quite clear how it would be in Order on the Amendments I have been moving so far. They are purely machinery Amendments which adapt to Scotland what the House has already decided. This Amendment puts into Scottish terms what the House decided to do on the first Government Amendment tonight. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would like us to describe the whole difference between the Scottish and English administration in this matter on these Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. I do not think it is necessary to go into all those details. However, I did imagine that on one of these two Amendments, which appear to be of some substance, the right hon. Gentleman or the Lord Advocate might—it is a matter entirely for them—explain the application to Scotland of what the House has done in the previous Amendments in relation to England.

Mr. Woodburn: I wonder if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would make a little clearer what he wants in more precise terms. Is he asking for a rather general, over-all description of the two systems of law?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I speak again by leave of the House. I do so for the purpose of clarification. I do not wish to have a description of the state of the law as it differs between the two countries. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will bear me out when I say that we have been discussing tonight some Amendments of substance. We did not then ask for an explanation of their bearing on and application to the northern Kingdom, believing and hoping that when we came to the Clause applying them to Scotland it would be convenient to the House to have that explained then, when all these things could be brought together, and all the various Amendments which have been made by the Minister could be explained at once in their relation to Scotland. We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to give the House some short survey of how these matters will affect the position in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I hesitate, not through any lack of willingness to comply with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's wishes, but because I feel that I should be entirely out of Order in trying to give an explanation of the effect of three new Clauses in this Bill on an Amendment which deals with one new Clause. The only effect of this particular Amendment, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate, is to apply in Scottish equivalent terms the English terms contained in the new Clause with regard to the special provisions as to a premium paid to the predecessor of the landlord. The effect is merely to translate into Scottish terminology, the terminology of subsection (3) of that new Clause. I

do not think that there is any particular difficulty in that respect. We have merely used in this Amendment the translation of the word "reversion" contained in the new Clause as meaning:
estate or interest in the dwelling-house, which immediately after the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy belonged to the immediate landlord of the tenant under the tenancy.
That is the only effect of the Amendment. It makes it perfectly clear how this new Clause will apply to Scotland. If I may repeat the expression used by the Minister of Health, I feel that despite the seduction put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I should be out of Order if I went beyond the confines of this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 41, leave out from "(3)," to end of line, and insert:
(4), (5) and (6) were omitted; and
(iii) there were inserted after subsection (2) the following subsection—
'(3) Section eight of the Rent of Furnished Houses (Control) (Scotland) Act, 1943 (which relates to certificates as to premises entered in the register kept under subsection (4) of Section two of that Act), shall have effect as if the reference to that register included a reference to the register kept under this Section '.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It occurs to me that it might be simpler, and it would get us out of the difficulty, if, these Amendments having been made to the Clause, the Clause as amended were put to the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not done on Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That puts us in some slight difficulty because we allowed the two earlier Amendments to pass, where references to this Clause were actually inserted, and the Lord Advocate now claims that it would be out of Order for him to attempt to give the House any general indication of the bearing of those Amendments on the two more limited Amendments which followed. I cannot say that I consider the procedure is satisfactory, or that we have had an explanation which this House is entitled to have when a Clause of great importance to Scotland, applying a Bill which has been moved in terms of English legislation, is sought to be written into the statute. I


trust that the Lord Advocate, even on the last Amendment, will find it possible to make some sort of survey of the position as it is now left by the statute which we have before us; otherwise we are left in a very unsatisfactory position.

The Lord Advocate: I cannot understand the complaints of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about the procedure being unsatisfactory. I make no comment as to whether or not that reflects on you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With the utmost respect it cannot reflect on Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Any reflection on the Chair would be totally out of place, and I am sure, Sir, that you would be the first to draw attention to it.

6.45 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I always understood, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you were the master of procedure in these Debates. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had wished to get an explanation of the application of these new Clauses to Scotland, then when we were examining these new Clauses he might then have asked in what respect they applied to Scotland, and what differences, if any, there were. He did not do so. We should have been quite willing at the appropriate time to make the explanation. I say that in all sincerity to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
With regard to this particular Amendment, the explanation is perfectly simple. Under Clause 6, the new subsection (4) has been introduced applying Section 11 of the English Act of 1946, to the Register to be kept under that Clause. The effect of Section 11 of the 1946 Act provides that a certified copy of an entry in the register kept under that Act shall be receivable in evidence in all courts and in any proceedings. We, in Scotland, in the 1943 Act have a similar provision under Section 8 which provides:
A document purporting to be a certificate signed by the clerk or other authorised officer of a Tribunal relating to any premises entered in the Register shall, until the contrary is shown, be deemed to have been signed by such clerk or other officer, and shall be sufficient evidence of the matter therein contained.
The only effect of this Amendment is to apply the rule of Section 8 of the 1943 Act to the register which we have now incorporated under Clause 6 of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(PROVISIONS AS TO PREMIUMS PAID TO A PREDECESSOR OF THE LANDLORD.)

1. Where Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act applies, the tenant of the dwelling-house at the time of the Tribunal's determination shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom the premium was paid such amount, if any, as may be provided by paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Schedule.

2.—(1) Where the existing rent (that is to say, the rent which would be the rent for a rent-period payable by the tenant at the time of the Tribunal's determination if this Act had not been passed) is equal to or exceeds the reasonable rent as determined by the Tribunal under subsection (1) of Section one of this Act, the said tenant shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom the premium was paid an amount equal to the rental equivalent of the premium as determined by the Tribunal under subsection (2) of Section two of this Act multiplied by the number of complete rent-periods in the period beginning with the determination of the Tribunal and ending with the relevant date.

(2) Where, in any case not falling within the last foregoing sub-paragraph, the said rental equivalent exceeds the difference between the said reasonable rent and the existing rent, the said tenant shall be entitled to recover from the person to whom the premium was paid an amount equal to the excess multiplied by the number of complete rent-periods mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph.

3. Where the rent payable under a tenancy is a progressive rent, the last foregoing paragraph shall have effect as if for the references therein to the existing rent there were substituted references to the average rent payable under the tenancy over the period beginning with the commencement of the term, or of the continuance or renewal of a term, in respect of which the premium was paid and ending with the relevant date.

4. Subsection (4) of Section three of this Act shall have effect subject to the following provisions, that is to say, that where before any assignment to which that subsection applies the Tribunal have given a certificate under Section (Special provisions as to premiums paid to a predecessor of the landlord) of this Act, the amount of premium allowable under the said subsection (4) shall be ascertained as if the premium first mentioned in that subsection were reduced by an amount equal to the rental equivalent mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of this Schedule or the excess mentioned in subparagraph (2) thereof, according as the said sub-paragraph (1) or the said sub-paragraph (2) applies, multiplied by the number of rent-periods in the period beginning with the grant, continuance or renewal in respect of which that premium was paid and ending with the relevant date.

5. Where subsection (4) of Section two of this Act applies, the three last foregoing paragraphs shall have effect with the substitution,


for references to the relevant date, of references to the date determined under paragraph (a) of the said subsection (4).

6. In this Schedule the expressions "relevant date" and "rent-period" have the meanings assigned to them respectively by subsection (2) of Section two of this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
The House will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary referred to these provisions on the new Clause at the beginning of our proceedings today.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
In view of the very full discussions we have had in the House both in Committee and on Report, I formally move the Third Reading of the Bill.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Molson: On the Second Reading, the Opposition voted against the Bill and in order to make their reasons for doing so quite plain both to the Government and to the country, they put down a reasoned Amendment. They voted against the Bill, in the first place, on the grounds that it would discourage the provision of new and converted dwellings; secondly, that it would result in the breach of existing contracts; and, thirdly, that it would increase the anomalies and grave injustice of the present system of rent restriction.
In considering whether to vote on the Third Reading, we naturally have to consider to what extent the Bill has been amended and, in our opinion, improved in the course of its passage through the House. As regards the first point, the main argument was that it was unwise to control the rents charged for houses after the War or houses or dwellings converted or let for the first time after the War. Our reason was that we wished to do everything possible to encourage builders and other business men to provide dwellings. The Minister said as regards that:
…it is objectionable to us to allow the provision of flat accommodation to let in the centres of our great cities to reside only in the hands of those who will do it if they obtain extortionate returns upon their capital investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 584.]

It was never the wish of the Opposition to encourage extortion of any kind. But it was also quite obvious that unless there was a sure and certain return upon the capital invested there was not likely to be a great deal of money and enterprise devoted to increasing the number of dwellings available. In taking this view, and in thinking that on balance it was unwise to interfere with the rents of houses built or let for the first time after the war, we were in agreement with the majority of the Ridley Committee. We believe that the only final and satisfactory solution of the rent problem is an adequate supply of houses and dwellings, and anything which will increase that supply seems to us to be a good thing.
Since we took that line on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman has introduced another Bill—which I cannot discuss in detail—in order to encourage conversion and reconditioning. It is, of course, entirely in accordance with his Socialist philosophy that he should put the cost of that upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer to a very large extent. We ourselves would have preferred to encourage private enterprise, and to have done that by giving them—

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. I do not wish to interfere with the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think it would be rather offensive if, on the Third Reading of this Bill, he were permitted to make any reference whatsoever to a Bill which has not yet been introduced. Also, in my submission, up to now he has said little or nothing about this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is clearly set out, and on Third Reading he cannot go outside it. He can either oppose or support the Bill; he cannot do more than that; he cannot add comments on what is not there; and he certainly cannot, in my submission, make any reference whatsoever to any other statute, especially one which has not yet had its Second Reading.

Mr. Molson: You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will no doubt recollect that when this point was raised in Committee the right hon. Gentleman did refer to the fact that he was intending to deal with the whole question of reconditioning and conversion in a different Bill. I am not going into details about it; what I am seeking to do is to explain the position of the Opposition, and the degree


in which it has been changed since the Second Reading of this Bill by the introduction of that other Bill. I shall not criticise the Bill for what is omitted from it. I am fully aware of what is germane to the Third Reading: to consider what is in the Bill, and in what respect the position is now different from what it was on Second Reading.

Mr. Bevan: Before you reply, Sir, to this point of Order, may I add this? The hon. Gentleman, on the Third Reading of this Bill, made a comment about the merits of a Bill which has not yet had its Second Reading. In my submission, it is highly improper to make any such comment, because by the rules of Order I am stopped from making any comment upon his comment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in that particular. Clearly, the hon. Member must relate his remarks to what is in this Bill. I was listening to him, but I had not quite appreciated that he was going into some detail on another Bill. He must relate his remarks to what is in this Bill, and not to some other factor.

Mr. Molson: Yes, indeed, and therefore I will say that we still are of opinion that the conversion and reconditioning of houses would have been effectively encouraged if the rents chargeable by the landlords had not been interfered with as they have been under this Bill, because the effect of this Bill is to enable the tribunals to reduce the rents which had been agreed between the parties; and this Bill does have a deterrent effect upon the landlords and the builders who otherwise would have risked their capital in doing that.
Our second objection was to the breaking of contracts. In that matter our objections have been somewhat strengthened by what has happened while this Bill has been passing through the House. If Parliament decides to intervene and to substitute for rents agreed upon between the two parties reasonable rents, that is a perfectly proper step for Parliament to take. But if it is going to do that in the interests of the tenants in cases where the rents charged are in excess of what are deemed to be the reasonable rents, it would only

be fair if, similarly, the landlords were able to go to the same tribunal and obtain increases in the rents where the actual amounts charged are unreasonably low. That is one of the defects of this Bill to which we still object. The fact that the Minister himself has heard our appeal for justice upon this and has refused to accept it does, I think, show a certain prejudice.
The third of our objections is that this Bill increases the obscurity and aggravates the injustices of the Rent Restrictions Acts; and to that, of course, the Minister has no answer whatsoever. I do hope—and when I ask him this, I am not asking him merely a rhetorical question—that after this Bill has been put upon the Statute Book he will consider bringing the official publication called "Rent Control in England and Wales" up to date. It was published in 1946, and it does seek to explain—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. This, after all, is only the beginning of the Third Reading Debate, and I think all of us would like to know where we are. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is now beginning to discuss whether or not the Rent Restrictions Acts should be brought up to date, and I should like to know whether, since that is not in the Bill, we are in Order in discussing it on Third Reading.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the alterations made by this present Bill might conveniently be reprinted, with others, for the information of the public. If that is so, it would appear to be a consequence arising out of the Third Reading, to which it would be proper for him to refer.

Mr. Molson: I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to enable both landlords and tenants to obtain, in comparatively simple form, an explanation of the general effect of this Bill, which is added to the various others which deal with rent restriction.
I now turn to the improvements which have been made in this Bill by the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of Amendments. We were surprised, gratified and, let me say, grateful at the way in which he responded to suggestions which we made. We regarded the Bill as a bad


and an inadequate Bill, but once it had had its Second Reading we tried to make it more logical, and therefore more just.
In the first place, the Bill as originally introduced prevented a landlord from charging a premium but did not also prevent the outgoing tenant from charging a premium. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in particular, made a great point on Second Reading that it was unfair to draw that distinction. Why the Minister did not deal with this matter when he introduced the Bill I do not know, and perhaps he will tell us whether it was a strange ignorance of the subject which he has now administered for four years, or whether it was that he wanted to encourage the Conservative Party to give him a little constructive advice and to egg him on. Whatever the reasons, we are obliged to him for having accepted our suggestion, and we think that the Bill has therefore lost one of its most objectionable characteristics.
In the second place, when we were apprehensive that the effect of the Bill would be to discourage conversions and reconditioning, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in particular, put forward a suggestion which would enable an enterpriser before he invested his money to obtain in advance an assurance of what would be regarded as being a reasonable rent, and the fact that the Minister expressed sympathy with that point of view and has carried out the undertaking he gave in a matter to which I am not allowed to refer naturally softens our hostility towards this Measure. In the third place, we are glad that houses covered by the Building Materials Housing Act, 1945, have also been excluded from the mischief of this Measure. Therefore, because the Government have been willing to make these substantial changes and improvements in the Bill, and because we can neither discuss nor take into consideration the omissions from the Bill during the Third Reading, we do not propose to divide against it.
I wish now to turn for a few moments to the defects of the Bill, and there are serious defects that still remain. If I do not develop the arguments at length, it is because we have already done so on Committee and Report stages. We are

not opposed to the idea of tribunals establishing reasonable rents. That was one of the main recommendations of the Ridley Committee. It is probably the only way that we shall ever get out of the jungle of the existing rent restrictions legislation. Therefore, we do not object to the principle of the establishment of tribunals to decide what are reasonable rents. But we do think it is extremely unreasonable on the part of Parliament to call upon tribunals to decide what is reasonable without giving any guidance at to the principles upon which they are to act.
To take the simplest case: Is a reasonable rent to be what is a reasonable rent for the landlord to charge, or what is a reasonable rent for the tenant to pay? That may be entirely different according to the criterion by which it is judged. From something the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to what I said on Report stage, he apparently does not always consider that the landlord is entitled to a fair return upon his expenditure. I cited a case where a landlord had had enterprise and had borrowed some money with which to buy a house and convert it into three flats and a flatlet of a single room for one person. As a result of reductions in the rents of three of the tenants, the landlord is now making a total profit of £4 a year at a risk of about £8,000, and if the fourth tenant goes to the tribunal and obtains a reduction he will then be working at a loss. The right hon. Gentleman has been unwilling that the intentions of Parliament—what I believe to be the ordinary sound principles upon which a tribunal of this kind should act—should be laid down. The effect will be that the landlord in this case gives notice to the tenants and sells the house with vacant possession when it will be occupied only by a single family.
We think that this Bill is likely to have a serious effect by discouraging the provision of additional housing. The right hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise the desire for all these tribunals to administer the law in the same way. I was shocked at certain sentences he used; when he said that he wished the tribunals to act informally and taking into account the conditions of the particular locality. I was painfully reminded of the peoples' courts that are set up in countries under Russian domination. That


a Minister of the Crown should be unwilling to lay down the general principles upon which the tribunals are to act, without there being any system of bringing their decisions into harmony, seems to me to be a most shocking departure from the accustomed principles of the past. The other point to which we object is that there is no redress for the landlord in cases——

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry to keep on interrupting, but if there is not in the Bill any redress for the landlord, I submit with some confidence that it is not in Order to complain of it on Third Reading.

Mr. Molson: If a Member is not to be allowed to point to any defect in a Bill because that defect might have been averted if something else had been added to the Bill it would appear that he can only speak on the Third Reading if he wishes to indulge in a paean of praise of the Bill.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Surely, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is failing to recognise a very clear distinction. It is a well-known practice that a Member may not refer, during Third Reading, to something which is a mere omission from the Bill, but that when he wishes to indulge in positive criticism, namely, that its provisions, as amended, are one-sided—he is surely entitled to make that criticism although, as a matter of grammar and language, the Member, in doing so, makes it in negative form. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was paying no attention to the real substance of what my hon. Friend was saying. Indeed, he has indulged in pettifogging criticism, based on grammatical structure.

Mr. Silverman: I hope I was not pettifogging, and if the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) ever moves to alter the Rules of Third Reading Debate to widen the Debate I think he will render the House a service, and I shall support him. But we have to conduct the present Debate according to existing Rules. While it is all right to complain that tenants have the right to have rents reduced, it is not competent to complain that a landlord cannot have his rent increased unless there is something in the Bill to give him that right.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister has inserted in the Bill power of access of the landlord to these tribunals. That being so I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is in Order in pointing out that the landlord has power of access to the tribunals although he does not think that that access is sufficient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The general rule of the House is, of course, well known. A Member can only refer to those matters which are in the Bill as it comes to the House on Third Reading. I was listening extremely carefully to the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), and if I may say so to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), there was really no necessity for him to call my attention to what the hon. Member was saying. I do think, however, that the hon. Member for The High Peak, in some of his remarks, was certainly going outside our practice. Not only that, but on another point he was rather rehashing, if I may use that expression, a good many of the arguments used on Amendments on the Report stage, earlier today. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to repeat those in detail. It may be that he is entitled to mention omissions if he puts them in a positive way, but no more than that; in strictness he should be confined to the contents of the Bill, and nothing more.

Mr. Molson: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I will certainly not go into these matters in detail. Under the Bill as it is, however, I think I am entitled to point out the great abuses which can arise. I was sorry to hear the Minister of Health emphasising so much his desire for complete informality. He spoke about easy access. I think there are cases in which it is possible for the tenant to have too easy access, and that there may be cases in which recourse to these tribunals is on frivolous and unsubstantial grounds. This is extremely vexatious to the landlord who incurs costs in rebutting these accusations, and is not able to obtain redress of any kind. We think that within its small and narrow scope this Bill will serve a certain useful purpose. We are very conscious of its many defects, but we sincerely hope that, on balance, it will do more good than harm.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) put certain questions during discussion of one or two Amendments on the Report stage which, at that time, seemed to go beyond what we are dealing with, but lest he should feel that I was guilty of any discourtesy I should like to take this opportunity of replying, as best I can, to the main point which I think he then had in mind. Tribunals were established in Scotland by the 1943 Act, and they have worked extremely well. There have been remarkably few complaints about their decisions, either by landlords or by tenants. Indeed, such has been the general behaviour of everyone concerned that there has not been, so far, much necessity for us to bring in any amendment to the Act.
This Bill has been introduced mainly to deal with matters which have arisen in England and Wales, and especially in London. A great many of the abuses, if they may be so described, which are being dealt with by the Bill are not prevalent in Scotland, and on this Bill Scottish voices have been more or less silent. A point raised some time ago in Scotland was about evictions of people who make complaints. Fortunately, we were able to deal with that by administrative action, which could include the requisitioning of the house. I am pleased to say that in most cases the matter was dealt with without recourse to requisitioning. Even with that process the procedure has progressed smoothly. The complaints made in England and Wales about cases which this Bill seeks to remedy have not been prevalent in Scotland but, nevertheless, there may be such cases here and there. When this Bill was coming before the House we therefore agreed that it should be a United Kingdom Bill and apply to Scotland as a whole.
So far as we know, there are few new lettings in Scotland and the question of a premium is not a common abuse. Should it occur we think it right that we ought to have the power to deal with it. The tribunals in Scotland cover over 90 per cent. of the population, and all the main industrial areas, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing thanks to their members, who have worked in

a quiet and unobtrusive way to do justice as between landlord and tenant. I understand that a number of people who have wished to let rooms have actually asked the advice of a tribunal as to what rent they ought to ask for their rooms. The tribunals have been looked upon not as an enemy of one section of the people but as bodies prepared to be fair to all sections. The Amendments which have been passed today will apply to Scotland. The Amendment about furnished rooms may have more effect in Scotland than the Amendments which refer to lettings themselves. I am glad that the Bill has reached this stage, because I am sure Scotland will welcome its additional powers.

7.20 p.m.

Colonel Dower: I hope I shall not infringe the strict rules of Debate on Third Reading. I have no wish to do so. As one who has a certain amount of knowledge of building I should like to make a few remarks which I hope the Minister will not regard as being offensive or as being opposed to the general principles of the Bill. The first thing it does is to remove abuses, which are not occuring wholesale, because not everybody takes advantage of the position today. The abuses are there, and possibly unscrupulous people would have taken advantage of them had it not been for this Bill.
Even at the expense of boring the House I want to labour the point that these abuses would not occur unless there was scarcity. All these abuses will completely go when the scarcity passes. While I have been a Member of this House I have seen many extraordinary things happen, and I have seen the situation changing. What is going to happen in the event, which we all hope to see one day, of there being more accommodation than there is demand for instead of the present scarcity? In that case a lot of this legislation will not be necessary, and, therefore, I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that he must not accept the present state of affairs as the status quo for the remainder of his life, because the situation may, in fact, change. At the present moment what we have to look at is that there is a grave scarcity, and a certain number of unscrupulous people are taking advantage of that scarcity. This Bill will unquestionably remove certain of the abuses.
At the same time, let us realise that we are injuring to a certain extent the provision of housing accommodation, because anything which is a restriction—I am not saying that we can remove all restrictions; of course we cannot—acts as a brake. Therefore one does not want to regard this as a completely, happy, normal, healthy Measure. Another thing, with which I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree, is that anything which breaks contracts freely entered into acts as an uncertain factor, which makes people feel there is no security, and they are not prepared to take risks if they feel that at a later date the contract can be upset. I am not saying that we can always accept contracts. There are occasions when it may be necessary to upset them, but we ought to reduce those occasions to a very minimum and regard them as regrettable instead of something which should be welcomed.
Lastly, there is the spate of legislation which Mr. Deputy-Speaker said we might mention for a few seconds. If we start consolidating all this legislation, economic factors in the country might lead the House to alter them as soon as consolidation has taken place. I know of many London streets where before the war there were many boards offering property to let. I remember streets of houses where there were perhaps 20 to 30 boards in every street. How do we know that those happier times will not return? Therefore, although we want to clarify the position in the interests of the general public, we do not want to pass some-tremendous consolidating Measure, which will, in fact, require to be altered almost immediately. I appreciate that I may have transgressed a little, and I do not intend to proceed further with this argument.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to get his Bill. He is not being opposed, because on all sides we realise that there are some features in the Bill which must command the support of all. I want however, seriously to appeal to him to remember that this is not a solution. The solution is to produce houses and get on with the provision of accommodation, so that rents will fall and so that no spiv or any other type of person will be able to circumvent legislation passed

by this House. If the accommodation is available the ordinary economic factors will come to the aid of the public who will then have a fair deal.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I rise to offer the congratulations of the country to the Minister—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has no right to do that.

Mr. Janner: Yes, I think I have. I want to congratulate him on carrying this Bill successfully to the stage which it has reached. I should like to quote a letter from my own constituency, and that is the best test to take in this matter. I have watched the rent tribunal in my constituency with very great care, and I have also experience of rent tribunal work through cases that have arisen for my consideration at various times. I should like to quote from a letter written to me by the chairman of the tribunal at Leicester. It reads as follows:
It is astonishing the number of people who have already signified their intention of making applications as soon as the Bill becomes law.
[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman finds to laugh at in that. This obviously means that a large number of people, who hitherto have not had an opportunity of exercising their rights in regard to their moral claims are now being put in a position to apply to a tribunal to have injustices removed. They are waiting for this Act to be passed so that they may immediately take advantage of it and have justice done in respect of their cases. I quote a little further:
Judging from some of the details with which we have been supplied there are some very bad cases to be dealt with.
This is not being said by a layman, but by a very experienced lawyer who has been for many years consulted in his legal capacity not merely by individuals but by courts. Today he is the chairman of this tribunal, and another member of the tribunal to whom I have spoken holds very similar views.
I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken into consideration a number of points which I put forward in the form of Amendments. I am grateful to him for having accepted the Amendments which dealt with restrictions on charging premiums on assignments in the


case of furnished and non-furnished lettings. We have cause to be pleased with the fact that since the Second Reading and during the Committee and Report stage the Minister has seen fit to stop the racket which was going on by the charging of heavy progressive rentals and so avoiding the principles of the provisions of a number of the Rent Acts which had been passed. The House ought to be grateful to him and his advisers for having taken into consideration a number of the other points raised on the Second Reading.
It is perfectly true that this Bill does not profess to cover the whole of the ground that ought to be covered. However, I am not going into that point except to say that I am frankly disappointed, because I know from experience in many cases that there are a large number of injustices yet to be dealt with, but this Bill in going as far as it does, fulfils a very useful purpose and will bring satisfaction possibly to hundreds of thousands—I do not think I am exaggerating—of people throughout the length and breadth of the country. I only hope that some people will not seek to evade the intentions of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give his consideration to the possibilities which are open in that direction, and that if any abuses arise he will take an early opportunity of having them dealt with by a separate Bill if he cannot provide for their prevention by the time the Bill becomes an Act. We have every cause to be grateful for the Bill, and I am certain that it will bring a considerable amount of relief in many cases.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Even when I agree, as I do in substance, with the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), I find it very difficult to agree with the arguments with which he supports his case. I want to begin as he began with a word of congratulation to the Minister. I do not claim, as the hon. Member claimed, to be speaking on behalf of the country. Such phraseology is both absurd and bombastic, but I trust that the Minister will accept the congratulations of a more modest character which I offer to him personally.
The subject matter of the Bill is probably among the most technical that Parliament has discussed for some time.

I should feel not in the least ashamed to confess, as one who has practised for some years in this branch of the law, that I should never dream of dogmatising about it without very carefully looking up my cases first. I must say, without any attempt at being patronising, that I was very much struck indeed with the extraordinary grasp of the extremely complicated principles of this legislation which the Minister showed during the course of the Debates. I should not have thought it possible for one who must necessarily be in one sense a layman, to have acquired this very extraordinary grasp in so short a time. That only confirms my view, which I have always held of the Minister, that it is a pity that a man of such great qualities should misuse them so badly as he does.
There is one other word of praise that I should like to add. I think that the Minister has done his best according to his lights, or according to such of his lights as he permits himself to use, to improve the Bill since it came before us on Second Reading. He has introduced what the Bill badly needed, provisions with regard to the assignment of tenancies. I certainly did not appreciate when I made my criticisms on Second Reading that new provisions relating to assignments would require such detailed or such complicated machinery to carry them out. The Minister is to be congratulated upon having taken those steps.
The main criticism by those of us who still do not like the Bill very much is not one which we should be in Order in raising on the Third Reading of the Bill. We are sorry that the Minister has used this opportunity to introduce what of its very character is an opportunist Measure, instead of something very different. Even with that general criticism put into the background as one which the rules of Order do not permit us to indulge at this stage, there are serious defects in the Bill as it stands. With respect to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I say that they are positive defects and not merely defects of omission.
I frankly do not like a Bill, which is a one-way street. The Minister described this Measure as being a tenants' relief bill and not a landlords' relief bill—highly coloured political language. The


ideal which I hold in this matter and which I should like to see embodied in legislation is that one should seek not to produce a landlords' relief bill or a tenants' relief bill, but should seek to hold the balance of justice equally in one's legislation. That the Minister does not even pretend to do by the Bill. He alleges that the Bill is a one-way street. I do not like one-way streets in matters of justice. I like the even balance, and not the weighted balance. My complaint against the Bill, even with all the improvements which have been effected in it, is that it is a Bill in which the scales of justice have been deliberately weighted on one side. I am not prepared to concede to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that the fact that there is nothing in one scale and the other scale is weighted is a purely negative omission in the Bill. It is inherent in its positive conditions. For that reason I criticise the Bill.
Secondly, I do not like the machinery for the administration of justice under the Bill. I quite agree with hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in praise of the tribunals, but even the tribunals—again I must seek to keep within the rules of Order—which have been introduced by the Minister are like jellyfish, local jellyfish which have no backbone. I do not regard the absence of the backbone in which the Minister glories, or the absence of the vertebrae of the right of appeal as mere omissions from the Bill. I regard the whole machinery for the administration of what is called justice here as something which is necessarily going to be rather cheap and nasty. I should have preferred something a little less cheap and a little less nasty.
The reason I smiled while the hon. Member for West Leicester was addressing the House was that he was in process of quoting what seemed to me the extraordinarily unjudicial remarks of the chairman of a tribunal. It seemed to me a very good example of the kind of evil to which this sort of tribunal inevitably lays itself open. It seems to me extraordinary that the chairman of a tribunal which is supposed to do justice should be writing to a Member of Parliament expressing an opinion about the litigation which, he alleges, is pending before his own tribunal. I was smiling because the hon. Member for West Leicester did, as

it seemed to me by the words he uttered, lend colour to the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), at which the hon. Member for West Leicester scoffed, when he said that this was the sort of thing which reminded him of the people's courts. My own view, such as it is, is—

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Member suggesting for a moment that the chairman of a rent tribunal is not entitled to give information to a Member of the House about the number of people applying to him, and in respect of the experience he has in consequence of the cases that come before him, in order to assist the Member of Parliament in the promotion of legislation?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member forgets that, according to the letter which I think he was reading to the House, the chairman was permitting himself to say that if the details supplied to him were accurate there were a number of very bad cases coming in front of him. I am a little shocked to see a member of the legal profession not only quoting that letter in the House but quoting it with such na"vet" that he did not even see that there was anything at all peculiar about it. It is an extraordinary thing indeed and savours of the people's courts to which my hon. Friend referred.
My own view is that in a very wide range of matters we are now committing ourselves to various new expedients, of which this is one, in the administration of justice in this country. In each case we are probably driven to take a course of this kind, but I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to listen to the advice of the Opposition in seeking to assimilate this machinery to the ordinary principles of natural justice. Nor do I regard his failure, for instance, to insist upon giving guidance in matters of principle to the tribunal or his failure to provide for any control of the tribunal as mere matters of omission. On the contrary, I do not think it is a mere criticism of omission to liken these tribunals to jelly fish without principles and incapable of control, floating upon a sea of prejudice and driven by tides of emotion rather than by proper and ascertainable principles which will enable justice to be done between man and man. That is particularly necessary, in view of the fact that professional lawyers are not normally engaged as


advocates, in order to compel them to do justice when their prejudices and emotions do not naturally lead them to do it.
I regard the whole tribunal apparatus as something which must be examined and must continue to be examined with very great care from time to time. I do not in any way think that my hon. Friend's reference to the people's courts was at all fanciful in the limited sphere where these tribunals operate. On the contrary, this matter will require further investigation. Subject to that, what I have said is in no way intended to take away from the congratulations with which I began this speech. Within the limited sphere with which he has wrongly set himself, the Minister has achieved a notable performance from the Parliamentary point of view and has produced a Bill which at any rate may do a little more good than harm.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has made so gracious and courteous a speech that I cannot help feeling that it was a pity that he should spoil it a little by some exaggeration towards the end. He was a little hard on the chairman of the tribunal who, as I understood it, had done no more than draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) to the number of hard cases in which he has at present no jurisdiction and in which he hopes that Parliament by this Measure will give him jurisdiction. I thought the comparison to peoples' courts so exaggerated as to be a serious limitation on the kind of speech the hon. Gentleman was making. I have always thought that what was supposed to be wrong with peoples' courts was that they were not courts at all but that they were only intended to condemn according to political prejudice, that they had no rules, that there was no natural justice and that they were purely political weapons and not courts of justice at all.
If that is so, it is a very serious objection to them, but if we admit that this tribunal—an hon. Gentleman opposite said he thought it quite right that tribunals of this kind should consider whether rents were reasonable or not—is a correct tribunal and that it is the only machinery available to us, and if the Minister is using it, it is a little hard to

say that he has gone behind the "curtain" for his inspiration and that he is really using political weapons. Nobody thinks that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Oxford does not think that.

Mr. Hogg: There is little between the hon. Gentleman and myself. When he accuses me of exaggeration, he is conceding my case, because exaggeration is to state too strongly in degree, that in which there is no difference in kind.

Mr. Silverman: If by their reference to peoples' courts, the two hon. Gentlemen opposite intended no more than to say that they were lay tribunals, I cannot for the life of me see why they needed to complain deleteriously by way of denigration of other courts of which we all disapprove. To use the hon. Gentleman's language, I should have thought that there was a difference not of degree but of kind between rent tribunals in this country and peoples' courts in the Soviet Union.
No one pretends that the Bill is any more than a patch intended to cover an existing hole until the time comes when the garment is completed. I only intervened, since we are not to have a Division, in order to do what I hope I may without offence take the opportunity of doing. It seems to me that the Opposition's attitude on the Bill is really an example of the kind of irresponsible and obstructive behaviour which has destroyed their influence in the House and largely destroyed it in the country. They voted against the Second Reading; they are not proposing to vote against the Bill tonight. There was nothing in the Bill as it was first presented which is not in it now. There are none of the things set out in the famous reasoned Amendment for which the Opposition—not all of them but most of them—voted on Second Reading, which are not still in the Bill. It seems to me to follow that either they were wrong to oppose the Second Reading or they are wrong not to oppose the Third Reading. They cannot have it both ways.
One of the three things their reasoned Amendment complained of—it was repeated in the opening speech from the Opposition—was that the Bill interfered with the freedom of contracts or interfered with contracts after they were made. The Opposition put that forward as a


ground of objection. Yet throughout the Debate subsequently they have asked not for less interference but more interference. One of the things now in the Bill is that we are to interfere not merely with contracts between landlord and tenant but contracts between tenant and tenant. If it was right to oppose a Bill which interfered with some contracts, one would have thought it was also right to oppose a Bill when it interfered with more contracts.
I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford that if an injustice is involved in what a Bill puts in as against what it leaves out, that is a positive objection to the Bill and not a negative one. If I seemed to say anything to the contrary earlier I regret it. It is a perfectly sound thing to say, "This thing might be just if something else was done as well, but since something else has not been done, it is unjust." One is entitled to say that, but if it is said, the case has to be made out, and I think that the hon. Member for Oxford signally failed to make it out. No one is in favour of interfering with the freedom of contract for the fun of it. The State interferes, and always has interfered, in contracts in order to protect the party which would be at a disadvantage if the State did not intervene.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman must not make a false point. What I was objecting to was this: that it ought to be open to a tribunal to fix a fair rent plus or minus the contractual rent, and not simply one that was minus; and that having done that, one has weighted the scales of justice having said it was only to go one way.

Mr. Silverman: I quite followed that point. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly lucid the first time. I think he will agree that it is related to the principle of interfering with contracts. The question is, what gives us the right to interfere? I know that he agrees that sometimes it is right to interfere; the question is, when? I am suggesting to him that the way this Bill does it is right because the State is only really justified in interfering when an injustice would be done if it did not interfere because one of the two parties to the contract is at a disadvantage.
We have never interfered to protect the moneylender from the man who borrows money. We have never interfered to protect the man who sells furniture on hire purchase against the person who hires his furniture and pays it off by small weekly instalments. We have always said that the moneylender and the seller of hire-purchase furniture are perfectly able to protect themselves in their contracts and, if they fail to do so, it is their business. However, the House has interfered to protect those who borrow money from moneylenders and those who buy things on hire purchase because it has come to the conclusion that the contracts are not equal contracts, and that unless the State, by legislation, protects one side against the other, injustice will result.
Indeed, this is the whole principle of the Rent Restrictions Acts. We have interfered with contracts only on the side of the tenant, never otherwise. I say that since this is confessedly only a patchwork Bill in order to deal with an existing situation, then it really seems quite inconsistent with the basis on which the Bill is supported by any of us to complain that, while it deals with the mischief it is aimed at, it does not also deal with another mischief which is not aimed at and which does not result from the scarcity of houses which lies at the back of this legislation.
I think my right hon. Friend was perfectly right when he put it, in the vivid picturesque language of which he is such a master, that this was a Bill to protect tenants and not a Bill to protect landlords. That is precisely what it is, and it is on that basis we ought all to support it, not because we take sides for the tenant as against the landlord, but because the circumstances which make it necessary to have a Bill at all are the circumstances which make the free contract difficult for the tenant and to the advantage of the landlord. If you have a sellers' market, you protect the purchaser, not the seller. That is the basis of it, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has followed these things so carefully, who attended the Second Reading Debate and who did not vote against the Second Reading, should have taken that point tonight when he is supporting the Third Reading.

Mr. Hogg: It is quite true that I did not vote on the Amendment which was


proposed by my hon. Friends. If it had been a straight vote on the Second Reading I probably should have voted against it, but I did not agree with the phraseology of the Amendment and I felt that I could not support it.

Mr. Silverman: That is just what I was saying, that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with the Opposition in the reasons which they gave for opposing the Second Reading, and therefore he is perfectly consistent tonight when he supports the Third Reading, but in what position are the rest of the Opposition? They are in the position of not opposing tonight what they opposed on the Second Reading although, if they were right on the point of the Second Reading, they would be all the more right today in opposing the Third Reading. For not all the Amendments made have been concessions to the Opposition. There was one concession to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) which put the operative date of the lettings of houses to which the Bill applies considerably further back. Although the Opposition voted against it without that extension, they are not going to vote against it with that extension. They are in a hopelessly unmaintainable position. All that has happened in the meantime is South Hammersmith, and one can only hope that their political education——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Hammersmith is not in the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: I do not press the point, but I am sure there must be in that part of London a great many houses to which this Bill refers.

Mr. Molson: As the hon. Gentleman was at such pains to prevent me from referring to anything that was not in the Bill while I was trying to address the House, does he not appreciate that while we could quite properly on Second Reading vote against the Bill because of its inadequacy, on the Third Reading we cannot do so for that reason?

Mr. Silverman: I think that the purely academic point which the hon. Gentleman is putting to me is one from which I would not dissent, but the Opposition did not vote against the Second Reading on the grounds of its inadequacy; they took pains to put on the Order Paper what their reasons were for voting against the Second Reading, and all those reasons

are still in the Bill. Since I must not refer to it again, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can only attribute their change of intention tonight to the rapidly advancing political education that they are experiencing at the hands of the electors.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. J. L. Williams: I want to refer briefly to one or two points in this Bill. Despite the rather pessimistic note from the other side regarding the application of this Bill to Scotland, I speak on the assumption that relief will be brought to considerable numbers throughout the United Kingdom, including my own constituency, where many people today look forward, as the people of West Leicester look forward, to this Bill becoming law in order to give them the relief for which they are waiting.
My first point is the extended security that is to be given by the tribunals to furnished lets. It will be possible for the tribunals under this Bill to renew for successive periods of no more than three months each the tenancy of these lettings. I would add my praise to all that has been said about the work of the tribunals. Great and good work has been done, relief has been brought to thousands of people, but at the same time my experience in meeting those with grievances week by week is that they now become reluctant to have them redressed by tribunals. That is not because of any lack of faith in the work of these bodies, but because they feel that if their application is successful they stand in danger of being served with a notice to clear out. So many of these people, if they can find the money are prepared to spend it in buying that higher degree of tenure, uncertain as it may be, rather than run the risk involved in applying to the tribunal. It will be more difficult under this Bill for that kind of action to be taken by the landlord.
My other point is the extension of the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts to tenants sharing living accommodation. Mention was made during the Second Reading Debate to that territory lying between the Rent Restrictions Acts and the legislation which has been brought in during the last few years in regard to furnished lettings. This is a very wide territory. My experience frequently is of somebody who has taken a couple of


rooms in one of these divided houses. There is no doubt whatever that the rooms are unfurnished. The man provides his own furniture and after a time is given a week's notice to leave. On inquiring into his real standing under the law he is told that he occupies what is really a furnished letting, for the reason that he is sharing accommodation or an amenity—a kitchen or bath room, for instance—with others in the same house. Very often he has spent his own and his wife's savings, and perhaps his Service gratuity, in buying furniture for that house. It is not surprising that such a man becomes bewildered on finding that his plight is described in terms so far removed from ordinary language. There is something in the Bill which will bring relief to that kind of person.
I make an appeal to my right hon. Friends the Ministers concerned for publicity for the provisions of this new legislation. I believe that mention was made—it gave rise to a point of Order—of bringing a book up-to-date. I am concerned not so much about a book as that both landlords and tenants should know of their rights and duties under this Measure. There is no doubt that in the last few years—since 1943, when the first Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act came into force in Britain—millions of pounds, responsible people have estimated, have been paid needlessly to the wrong people because the victims were not aware of their rights under the law.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): Probably the hon. Gentleman could make his point by asking for the Bill to be publicised. He cannot go back to the earlier Acts.

Mr. Williams: I follow your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely illustrating what had happened in the last few years. I hope that the same thing will not happen under this new legislation.
The Bill, as has been pointed out by many hon. Members, applies chiefly to London, but I believe there is a great deal in it for the rest of the country. The question of premiums has been discussed, and rightly so, at some length. Other provisions, however, which have not given rise to the same amount of discussion, are nevertheless, important. Because of the extended protection afforded by

the Measure in the directions and to the groups of people I have mentioned, the Bill, for this reason if for no other, is well worth while.

8.4 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel Elliot: We are approaching the conclusion of a discussion which on the whole, I think, has been carried out in a businesslike fashion on a Measure which admittedly raises problems which are not capable entirely of a lasting solution. The problem of the replacement of fixed capital, especially of house capital, and the price which should be paid to keep it in proper maintenance and repair, is one of the most puzzling of questions, especially when, at a time such as the present, the value of money has fallen greatly in recent years and the cost of repair, maintenance and construction of new accommodation is enormously higher than it was when this accommodation was originally prepared.
The arguments which have been put to the House have, on the whole, addressed themselves to the practical points which this legislation raised. We do not grudge the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) the gleeful remarks which he addresses by way of soliloquy to the House, thereupon disappearing entirely from the precincts until the next occasion arrives for him to come in to conduct a monologue, either during somebody else's speech or immediately after it. But it was a little rash of him to suggest that voting against the Second Reading inevitably involved voting against the Third Reading of a Measure. It displayed not only a remarkable ignorance of Parliamentary procedure, but a remarkable ignorance of the recent utterances of the Minister, whom he was complimenting at the time. For it was only on 17th February last that the Minister gave the House some observations on the question of voting on Second and Third Readings, and pointed out:
One very rarely votes against a Bill on Third Reading if one does not object to the Bill root and branch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1949; vol. 461, c. 1464.]
Naturally, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne never listens to anybody else's speech and, as far as anyone can see, never reads anyone else's speech either. It is a pity that in these circumstances he takes it upon himself to address the House on points of procedure.
The points of which we complained have to some extent been modified. It is true, as my hon. Friends have said, that our objections have not been removed entirely, but it would be impossible for us to say that we object to the whole Bill root and branch. It was pointed out by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the original Bill was introduced as long ago as 1943, at a time when there was a very considerable Conservative majority in the House. The subsequent Measures have, of course, been the matter of consideration by both parties, but they have been the matter of consideration as dealing with immediate and practical proposals.
As has been said by Members on more than one side of the House, the difficulties of the situation are, of course, the signs of shortage. This is a scarcity Bill. It arises out of a desperate scarcity. It is a matter of distress to all of us, in all parts of the House, that we should be forced to introduce such a Measure in the fourth 'year after the war. It must be an especial hardship to the Minister, who put himself on record, when introducing the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, of which this Measure is an amendment, as saying:
The House will note that, at the end of 1947, the Measure will die. This is my own estimate—perhaps vague—of the period when the worst housing stringency will have ceased to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1945; vol. 415, c. 1945.]
The worst housing stringency, of course, has not only not ceased to exist, but in some ways has become much more stringent, of which this Bill is the proof. The housing lists in London, which have risen from 50,000 in 1945 to 150,000 at present, are an example of the enormously increasing stringency. Although I mention this only in passing, it is clear that the new construction is scarcely keeping pace with the destruction, the wastage, of houses and is certainly doing nothing to eat seriously into the shortage.
The difficulty of the Government, of course, is that, faced with a scarcity, they are bound to bring in scarcity Measures. The other Measure which follows this is also a scarcity Measure. That being so, we examine this scarcity Measure to see whether it will do more harm than good. The two dangers which we see are the danger of the deterrent to new construction

and the danger of the breaking of contracts. These are two sides of the single problem. We object to the breaking of contracts not only from the point of abstract justice, which we do not expect to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman or his supporters, but from the practical side that it might deter people from entering upon new construction.
An improvement has certainly been effected by the fact that the Bill as amended, and read in conjunction with the other Measure just introduced by the Minister, provides that a man desirous of providing accommodation can now find out the return which he might expect. That was one of the points which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It is a point upon which he is perfectly entitled to say that he is able to support a Measure of which he said on Second Reading that on pure merit he might not have found himself able to support.
Furthermore, there have been Amendments on one matter which has been brought forward by all of us on this side of the House, namely, the position of the landlord. The landlord was previously estopped from making any appearance whatever before the tribunal. That has been removed. It is true that the provision does not go so far as we should wish, but for the first time the landlord has a locus standi before the tribunal. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) brought out that point, and it is one of the reasons why we certainly consider that an improvement has been made in the Bill.
It is quite true in regard to the third point which we made—the increase of anomalies—that some of them have been removed, but not all. Again, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said in his mild glee, an Amendment has been accepted which was moved by the Communists. The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to be gleeful about that, not so gleeful as the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), but still gleeful to a reasonable degree in comparison with the somewhat gloomy outlook which is in general appropriate to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. But some anomalies have certainly been ironed out. The question of assignments of controlled leases has certainly been met.
The great anomaly of the person who was in an area where there was a surplus of houses, and who on that account let a house at a low rent, has not been met. The hon. Member seemed to indicate that there was no such thing, but there are many cases which are well known to the Minister, and which must also be well-known to the Home Secretary, of areas which were under bombardment during the war, from which people had to move, and in which tenants were sought at almost peppercorn rents, for the simple purpose of keeping houses occupied. There are people in areas from which the so-called landlords were moved, often at the behest of a Department of State. I myself gave the example of the Ministry of Health, when I had to issue orders which compelled the movement of many thousands of civil servants to the North country from the areas where they had their houses. Many other examples must be known to the Home Secretary.
Therefore, when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne quotes with delight and approval the assurance of the Minister that this is a Bill for the protection of tenants and not for the protection of landlords, it seems to me to be rubbing in a little the attitude of mind from which the Minister did his best to escape in an earlier interruption. On that occasion he explained that he really knew that landlords were often humble people, and that his heart bled almost equally from the right lobe for the landlord, from the left lobe for the tenant, so to speak, and that he was equally willing to look after the interests of both. The unconscious revelation of his attitude, to which he gives vent when he is in his unguarded moments, goes a long way to disprove that that is his real attitude. Nevertheless I believe it to be true that it would be much better if we could get away from the words "landlord" and "tenant" and use some such phraseology as "accommodation provider" and "accommodation consumer," which would not arouse these complexes.

Mr. McAdam: Rent gatherer and rent payer.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There again we see the same complex and how it springs up, in spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite say about their desire to be just to the accommodation provider who is a

person in humble circumstances. The words "rent gatherer and rent payer" represent the normal way in which they look at the matter. Yet not one of them does not inveigh against people for not building more houses to let. In successive sentences they attack people for not providing houses to rent and then inveigh against them for collecting any remuneration for those houses. This Bill carries out that point of view to some extent.
The anomalies about goodwill have been corrected by the Minister, corrections which he admitted were due to considerations advanced by us on this side of the House. He seemed to think, however, that those considerations were needless, but in that case why did he make any alteration in the Bill? Clearly, he must have been convinced that the alterations were an advantage or he would not have made them. Nor am I sure that all the anomalies have been yet corrected. There is the question of the houses let under Regulation 68CB, which the Home Secretary will remember. People were urged to register their houses and let them under a form which provided that if they were so let they would be protected against the provisions of any Rent Restrictions Act. This was done under a Defence Regulation. I should like the Minister to look into the point as to what will happen when the Defence Regulations fall or are abrogated. I trust that no mischief, to use the technical term, will come to the people who accepted that obligation and registered, and whose property is in occupation on account of the bargain arrived at between them and the Ministry, when the regulation which at present protects them lapses or otherwise comes to an end.
So much for the reasons which have led us, as I say, not to ask the House to reject this Bill on its Third Reading, namely, that the deterrent is less, many of the anomalies have been diminished and the position of the accommodation provider—I am trying to use this anodyne word—is at any rate slightly improved by the Amendments which the Minister has inserted in the Bill. As the Secretary of State for Scotland has said, it is a Bill which applies more particularly to London and almost exclusively to England and Wales. The hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams) seemed to think that it would be of great


advantage in that constituency. A slightly piquant position arises there, for I also have some knowledge of the constituency. I would say that at present the anxiety of the inhabitants of that area is much more as to whether they will be able to get a house of their own than whether they are having to pay too much for certain furnished accommodation. Places like 63, Buccleuch Street, with 43 people living in one house and only one toilet, will not be improved by any provisions which this Bill seeks to introduce, but only by a programme of new construction which is long and lamentably overdue.
The House certainly ought not to reject this Bill. The position in which we are is so serious and the stringency is so acute that every possible palliative must be sought. The only possible criticism of any palliative should be that it does more harm than good. I do not think that can be said in this case. But it is a palliative, and only a palliative, and certainly the position will not be improved until a much greater programme of new construction is in sight than there is any sign of at present.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I am not proposing to ask the House to listen to me for any length of time, because it is not stimulating to speak in opposition to a case which is, I was going to say, intrinsically so weak. With his usual dexterity the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been trying to cover a retreat from an untenable position. He misrepresented my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) because in fact my hon. Friend spoke of a vote upon a reasoned Amendment and not upon Second Reading. If I remember rightly, it was only one vote upon the reasoned Amendment itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, despite his dexterity, did not succeed in answering how it comes about that the principles in the Bill which were wholly repugnant on Second Reading are acceptable today. That point has not been made. I do not want to extend the Debate in conjecture as to what it is that has convinced the Opposition to take a different course. As Mr. Deputy-Speaker has said, there are certain matters that lie outside the Bill and I am not able to refer to them. But I am quite sure that the Opposition have not been entirely

unconvinced as the consequence of electoral opinion, and the performances given quite recently.
The position with regard to Third and Second Readings is clear. In ordinary Parliamentary practice one votes against a Bill on Third Reading if one is still convinced that the principles of the Bill are unsound. That is the reason why I made my reference the other night. It is because the Opposition thought the principles of the Health Bill were unsound that they voted against them on Third Reading. They are perfectly entitled to do that, and we are perfectly entitled to remind them that they did so. Now, of course, all we want to know is what has convinced the Opposition in the meantime.
It is perfectly true that in the passage of the Bill through the Commons I have accepted a very important Amendment which was recommended to me by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and which was supported, I think, by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) and several hon. Members in different parts of the House. The hon. Member for The High Peak Division (Mr. Molson) was unkind enough to ask whether I was entirely ignorant of the existence of that class of person. The fact is I had considered the matter very carefully when the Bill was being constructed. I do not think that virtue should be refused a certain amount of guile. I thought to myself, "This is a highly debatable point. I would like to have the advice of the House of Commons upon it, and see what they do, and see whether indeed they find that assignments as between tenants is the kind of conduct that ought to be got rid of."I was perfectly ready to accept the advice. Now I have had it. I have incorporated in the Bill a provision that makes premiums on assignments between tenants illegal, because I understand that the Opposition do not like that. All right then, if they do not like assignments between tenants, do they like assignments as from a landlord to a tenant? I should like to know now, because we ought to have some clarity about this.

Mr. Molson: I will give the answer perfectly plainly. We do not, as a matter of fact, object to premiums, but if we are to make it illegal in one case we had better make it illegal in another.

Mr. Bevan: So the Opposition still think that premiums ought to be left? They say if premiums are not to be permitted then they should be prohibited on all rents, but they still think that premiums should be charged. Why then do they not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill? I am astonished at this and I am worried by it. I think, as I have said before, that the electors when they are choosing one of two parties to govern in this State, ought to know what they are choosing between, and what are the principles dividing us. It is the duty of the Opposition to raise their flag. It may be bedraggled but nevertheless they should raise it. After all, how are the electors to follow them if they cannot see where they are going. So I gather that the Opposition still think, and I hope that it will be noted—that it is a perfectly proper thing, in times of housing scarcity, for premiums to be levied. I understand from the hon. Member for The High Peak that they are not against premiums. That is what he said.
We are against premiums, because we think it is a bad thing that people who are without housing accommodation should have their circumstances preyed upon by people who have no decent restraint. We know that in the last three or four years, and indeed before that, very large premiums indeed were exacted by people who were in possession of accommodation——

Mr. Hogg: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is making a very false point and he must not make it. I know that he knows that in fact premiums on restricted houses have been illegal now for 29 years at least, and probably more. What we are saying is: "If you make it illegal, as it has had to be, in respect of restricted houses, then you have to make it illegal (a) in respect of assignments and (b) in respect of new restricted lettings.

Mr. Bevan: I was referring more particularly to lettings where we have premiums charged on lettings for the first time. I take the point, and I have accepted it. What was key money, if refused to the landlord, ought not to be permitted to the tenant on assignment. But I gather from the Opposition, or from some hon. Members of the Opposition, that it is still not repugnant to them. They are not voting against the Third Reading, not because they are against

premiums, but for reasons which have not yet transpired in any of the speeches which we have heard. But having certain political clairvoyance we can guess the reasons which will not lead them into the Division Lobbies this evening.
The right hon. Gentleman did trail his coat a bit and say that the reason for this Bill was that there was still a shortage of accommodation. Of course it is. He says it is rather painful and regrettable that after four years we still have to have protective legislation of this kind. Certainly it is. In 1946 I used the words which he attributed to me. I have never concealed from the House and from the country that I have accepted with far too great credulity the housing targets which I inherited from my predecessor.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I was a member of the Coalition Government.

Mr. Bevan: I am talking about my immediate predecessor in the Caretaker Government, not the Coalition Government. It is perfectly true, and it is a most interesting reflection—I shall have more to say about it when we introduce the Housing Bill—that the amount of the shortage of housing that existed in 1938–39 was for very large numbers of people far more serious than was ever revealed in the housing statistics. This is strictly pertinent to this Bill because we are still protecting people against the shortage of accommodation. In 1938–39, very large numbers of people who would have applied to the councils for a house and whose names would have appeared on the councils' lists did not do so because they could not afford to rent a separate house. There were two million unemployed in those days and that figure itself kept off the housing lists large numbers of people who shared accommodation because only in that way could they afford to pay the rent. But now that we are living in more expansive times, now that there is full employment, and now that people are earning reasonable wages and feel that they are able to launch out, they are coming forward as applicants for houses.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deny the fact that at that time they were being provided with houses at the rate of


350,000 a year, and that now they are only being provided with houses at the rate of 220,000 a year.

Mr. Bevan: It happens to be the fact, as revealed by the housing figures, that, when the Opposition were in office, we were providing a much larger amount of accommodation for people who could afford to buy a house than for people who wanted to rent a house, and that large numbers of people did not even want to rent a separate house because the Opposition had kept them in so impoverished a state that they did not have the ambition to live in a separate house. That is a shocking reflection on the conduct of the country and the Opposition. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been well advised not to have trailed his coat in that direction.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The oftener the right hon. Gentleman lets me say that I was building 100,000 houses a year more than he is, the better I am pleased, but is it strictly relevant to this Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went into the question of housing and housing figures, and the Minister is equally in or out of Order, as the case may be, in also doing so.

Mr. Bevan: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, the need for this Bill rests on the shortage of accommodation. Of course it does, and that is why it is here. Indeed, there would have been need for some protective legislation in 1937–38, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his party depended on the poverty of the population to conceal from them the full consequence of their neglect and incompetence.
Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the results of this Bill will be to prevent accommodation being provided in the centres of our great cities. Indeed, he regretted that on Second Reading and one of his hon. Friends mentioned it tonight. What they are saying, in fact, is that the one section of private enterprise that was being permitted to provide accommodation for rent will be discouraged from doing so by the provisions of this Bill. I hope I am not misrepresenting them, but that is their contention. What does it prove?

It proves that private enterprise in the building industry can only provide accommodation for rental by charging exorbitant sums for that accommodation. That is exactly the point, and that is what the Bill is aimed at. It is perfectly true that in the centres of our cities conversions and adaptations are taking place. This is the sector in the building industry where private enterprise is able to provide accommodation for rental, and this is the one sector where the most appalling exploitation of tenants takes place.

Mr. Molson: I have already cited a case where a tribunal has so reduced rents that it has resulted in a profit of only £4 on £8,000. That is not extortion; that is a bad tribunal.

Mr. Bevan: That is a mere red herring. London is the one part of Great Britain where the local authority housing schemes are undermanned at the present time, that is to say, the one part of the country where we have not sufficient building labour to fully man up the housing industry with properly balanced building teams. Therefore, we cannot afford that building labour being diverted to building flats or making conversions that can only be used by people who are able to pay extortionate premiums to those who let them. If we have to choose between the provision of flats in London, let at high rentals to people who can afford to pay them, and using this same labour to build flats for the London County Council and the Metropolitan boroughs for letting to those on housing lists, then we prefer to use the labour on the latter rather than on the former. That is a plain statement, but it shows what I want to point out. When the greed of unrestricted private enterprise is let loose on the housing shortage—I did not say it in the first instance; hon. Members opposite did—it gorges itself at the expense of the poor tenants. Therefore, the reason for this Bill is in order to force them to pay back some of the premiums they have exacted.
There is one part of this Bill to which very little reference has been made, but to which I wish to refer, and that is where it deals with shared accommodation. I am very anxious indeed to get the Bill on the Statute Book as early as possible, because large numbers of people are


losing the protection of the Rents Acts at the present time, and the sooner we get that protection restored the better. I will take what steps are available to me to publicise this Bill when it becomes an Act, as the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and as one of my hon. Friends suggested, in order that the citizens of the country may be aware of their rights under the Measure. I appreciate the many kind things that have been said in the course of the discussion this evening, and I trust that we can now give the Bill its Third Reading and let it go to another place where, I hope, the reactions will be amiable and even more speedy than they have been here.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL DIRECTORSHIPS (APPOINTMENTS)

8.39 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Michael Astor: I wish to refer for a moment to a Question to the Prime Minister which was on the Order Paper for 7th February in which I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider setting up any extra-Parliamentary body to advise him on the appointment of directors of the Bank of England and similar public bodies. I was unavoidably detained from being in my place when the Question was called, as I explained to the Prime Minister, but I wish to say that any idea which I then put over in Question form was not an expression on my part of a policy which I would have advocated. In the first place, it was a plain straightforward inquiry to elicit information, and, secondly, I hoped in a supplementary question to express some of the great anxiety felt by the public on some of the appointments made in the original list of directors of the Bank of England.
This evening I am going to attempt two things. One is to give as fairly as I can an appreciation of a situation in which the Government have placed themselves in respect of patronage, largely as a result of nationalised Measures. Secondly, I am going to ask the Financial

Secretary to give the House certain reassurances as to the principles which govern these appointments. Everyone knows that patronage is nothing new. Patronage is a necessary appendage of Government. It always has been. In the 18th century it was very prevalent, and successive generations in the 19th century tried to reduce it. I do not think that any party can say that they have 100 per cent. clean record in being non-partisan if anyone wished to take a highly critical view of the appointments that have been made. I think that the criticism of "jobs for the boys" is sometimes overdone. The dilemma of the present Government is that they have not a sufficient number of boys for the jobs and by that I mean that they have not a sufficient number of potentially good Colonial Governors, or whatever it may be, and, therefore, I think that they would be wise in future to cast their net a bit wider.
What is new is the enormous amount and degree of patronage with which the Government find themselves vested. That is an entirely new departure. I should like to point out to the Financial Secretary one of the trends which is bound to operate as a result of this. In all nationalised industries, those people who attempt to catch the Government's eye, either by exhortation or acquiescence or through political affiliations, people who are successful in that respect—and there will be people who will try to do this thing—will rise up the ladder at a higher rate pro rata than they did before; and those people, technicians, artisans and industrial experts who are not able to play politics in this respect will tend to lag behind in the matter of promotion. This pressure will inevitably tend to operate, and I hope to hear from the Financial Secretary that he is very aware of the dangers of this and all that it means.
I have heard it argued in this House before now that there was, of course, patronage under a private enterprise system. That is perfectly true. There are, however, two distinct differences in this respect. First of all, every company that I have ever heard of in private enterprise industry has of necessity to make money. I am not so certain that that is the case with nationalised industries; more exactly not in an industry as a whole, but I can see in certain sections of


nationalised industries that for extra-financial reasons it is not always deemed necessary to make a profit, and the matter then, when it comes to the House of Commons, is largely one of bookkeeping.
The other point is that private enterprise is not dealing with the taxpayers' money; that is not what is being risked. Let us look at the first socialising Measure with which the Tory Party was in agreement when they had a large majority during the National Government of 1930–31. That was the London Passenger Transport Board. What did we do in that case? We divested the Government of this gift of patronage and set up appointing trustees. We said that there was one representative on the London Traffic Advisory Committee and to quote from the Debate the time
the other gentlemen are selected as persons divorced from political associations and possessing by the offices which they hold the acknowledged position, training and type of mind calculated to fit them for the task of selecting persons of proved business and financial experience.
That is one way of dealing with the matter. I am not satisfied that we can apply that to nationalised public boards. I know the argument against that, and I do not think that the Prime Minister can divest himself of this large responsibility and, if he does, the pressure, such as it is—and it is a real pressure—will be immediately placed in another direction. I think that the Financial Secretary would agree that if the Government do not do something of this kind and divest themselves of this gift of patronage they have to be doubly careful in the appointments which they make. Have they always been so careful? It is invidious to mention names in Debates of this kind, particularly of people who by recent events are probably precluded from holding public office again, and I am not making this a personal matter, but am trying to keep it as a matter of principle.
So far as the Law Officers are concerned—the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General—I think that their appointments are absolutely beyond criticism. But let us look at the Bank of England because that gives the first shining example of what Socialism was, and all that it stood for. I should say, to start with, that we have no criticism at all of the new appointmens made recently in this respect; but on the

original list there were two or three directors appointed, the main reason for whose appointment, so far as I can judge, was the fact that primarily they were good, solid party men or had built up a reputation largely due to their affiliations with the present Government.
The fourth appointment—and here I am expressing the views of those whom I consider well-qualified to pass intelligent criticism on the matter—was due particularly to close personal association with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that Members on both sides are relieved to find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster no longer has the power and influence which he had at that time. If I am doing the director concerned a disservice in saying this, I would merely say that there is very often a sinister motive imputed to those who associate too closely with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Last week there was what I consider a good case in point. In the Debate on the Air Estimates——

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain exactly what he meant by "sinister motive?" What is he really talking about?

Mr. Astor: I was saying that public opinion, being what it is, there are, for better or worse, certain sinister implications attached to those who follow too closely the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in public life.

Mr. Mitchison: That is very unfair.

Mr. Astor: In the Debate on the Air Estimates, there was a certain amount of public concern about the appointment of the Chairman of B.E.A., Lord Douglas. I, personally, do not agree that this was a particularly suitable appointment at this moment. Lord Douglas—who, after all, made his reputation in Fighter Command—with no business experience at all, supplants Mr. d'Erlanger, who as I understand it, had an uphill struggle all the time in B.E.A., and incidentally had a considerable amount of banking experience behind him. Be that as it may, that is not the point I wish to bring out. I think this is a very good example of the way in which a public figure can get to a position of advantage not coincidental with being either a member of or joining the right party at the right moment. In saying


that I am not imputing any sinister motive to Lord Douglas; I believe he has been affiliated to the Labour Party for some time. That is not the point. But it is, I think, a very clear example of the way in which that is an additional and telling factor at a crucial moment.
Let me illustrate further what I mean by considering the case of the former Chief of the Air Staff, Lord Portal—a man of twice the ability of Lord Douglas, and of even greater repute. As far as I know, he has no political affiliations of any kind, and I am rather led to assume that because of that he would not be considered for that appointment. If I am wrong, I hope the Financial Secretary will tell me. I am trying to point out the sort of dangers and dilemmas which can be, with the very best intention in the world—and I do not think the Prime Minister set out with any Machiavellian purpose in mind——

Mr. John Wilmot: Since the hon. Member is bandying these damaging and offensive references about, I am sure he will allow me to remind him that since Lord Portal left the Royal Air Force, to which he gave distinguished service, he has rendered other distinguished service to the State, above praise and above price.

Mr. Astor: I have said nothing disparaging about Lord Portal. I said that he was twice as able as Lord Douglas. If that be disparaging, I did not mean it in that respect. I was merely saying that because Lord Portal had, as far as I knew, no political affiliation I was rather led to suppose that he was certainly less likely to get this sort of job. What I mean is that people in this category tend to fall behind.
On 23rd June, 1947, in a Debate in this House, the present Secretary of State for War, who was then Minister of Fuel and Power, said that he would not consider appointing to a nationalisation board—and in this respect he was talking about the British Electricity Authority—anyone opposed to nationalisation.

Mr. Snow(Lord of the Treasury): Hear, hear.

Mr. Astor: One of the Government Whips says "hear, hear."

Mr. George Wallace (Lord of the Treasury): Hear, hear.

Mr. Astor: That is excellent. Two Government Whips say "Hear, hear."

Mr. Snow: Why not?

Mr. Astor: I shall come to "why not" in a moment. I believe that the Lord President of the Council also associated himself with that idea, and I should like the Financial Secretary to deal with this specific point in reply. To say that anybody opposed to nationalisation is to be precluded covers a very wide field indeed. The large majority of people in responsible executive positions in industry are, in the first instance, opposed to having that industry nationalised. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Mr. Snow). I think that he is taking a very clumsy line in acquiescing in these remarks, precluding a great many men of considerable ability. I should have thought a far more reasonable view would have been to say, "We will take the ablest men who can be found, and assume that, if they are of the calibre who will, in our opinion, qualify for these jobs, they will be prepared to serve their country and the industry to the utmost of their ability." I should have thought that any initial opposition to nationalisation, or even lifelong political opposition to nationalisation, should not preclude the industry and the country from using their services.
In conclusion, I ask the Financial Secretary to clear up these three points. First: Is it a cardinal point of Government policy that no one who has opposed the nationalisation of any industry is eligible, in their opinion, to be appointed as one of their directors or public servants in a responsible position in this respect? Secondly: Are the Government sufficiently aware of the pressure which is bound to operate, and to be operated by those people wishing to avail themselves of these rich financial plums accruing from nationalised industries?
Thirdly, can we have a specific assurance that the Government consider that in principle these appointments should be above party and above politics—after all, there will be changes of Government in the years ahead? I have tried to moderate my remarks, although I do not know whether all Members will agree,


and to present the case as fairly as I can. In conclusion, I would add that there is considerable public anxiety due to the fact, not so much that this or that Minister is specifically abusing his powers, but to the fact that these enormous powers have accrued to the Government. That is the least I can say about the public anxiety that exists on the matter.

8.57 p.m.

Major Bruce: The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) has spoken to the House as though he wished to allay public anxiety on the question of appointments by the Government to certain public boards which have followed quite naturally from the nationalisation legislation which has been passed. In my view, the only public anxiety to which he is paying any attention at the moment is that which has been deliberately created as an act of policy by the Press that habitually supports the Opposition, with material for one of the most scurrilous and scandalous campaigns ever proceeded with by any Opposition that has had any history at all in the House of Commons. If the hon. Member had come to the House with an analysis of the personnel on the various boards and had shown how many were Conservative, how many were Labour and how many were Liberals, and had endeavoured to present the House with some factual analysis arising from the facts so presented, he would be entitled to say that he had come here because he wanted to allay public anxiety. But all he has done is to touch on particular people, sometimes by name and sometimes by inference, and the whole object of touching on the names and making the inferences was to smear everything he touched.
If he had been fair-minded about this, he would have produced data for which a responsible body of legislators are entitled to ask when anyone presents a serious case to them. The fact of the matter is that if this Government have erred in the political sense, they have probably erred in the opposite direction. It would not matter to me if that were so. It would not matter to me if there were, as I believe there are, more Conservatives, sometimes, of course, masqueradingunder the title of "Independent," than Socialists, openly

avowed or otherwise. It should be the concern of any responsible Government to put people in posts of public responsibility that are best entitled to them by their qualifications and experience, and by the things they represent in some cases. It is also the responsibility of heads of public corporations not only to direct policy but also to be responsible for morale.

Mr. Astor: The hon. and gallant Member has expressed very healthy sentiments about impartiality and says that I have besmirched certain people. I have cast no stigma upon anyone who has been appointed. I am merely getting at the persons who make the appointments, not at anyone, past or present, with the Bank of England.

Major Bruce: I accept the assurance. I am certain that when my right hon. Friend comes to reply he will not wish to shelter behind those who make the appointments but will accept Governmental responsibility. If it be true that the Opposition want us to be impartial about this and are making a terrific case about impartiality—and, of course, the cry in the country is "Jobs for the boys," which has a nice journalistic ring—they should take note of remarks made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) at the 68th Annual Conference of the Conservative Party held, not so long ago, at Brighton. What was the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks on that occasion? It was to warn Conservatives that if they entered nationalised industries, if they accepted positions on the boards, they would be suspect at Conservative Party headquarters and would, therefore, be exposed to removal from their position unless they were careful. If I have given an inaccurate paraphrase of what the hon. Gentleman said I will read what he said. It bears, I think, only one inference:
There is only one other thing I want to say, and I am putting it by way of warning. In the industries which are menaced by nationalisation at the moment there is a very small minority of people who do not resist the Government wholeheartedly in these nationalisation measures because they have at the back of their minds the hope that they are going to get a job on these boards. Let me make it quite clear, so that there is no misunderstanding in the backs of their minds of these industrial Quislings, that betrayal and appeasement never pay in the long run. and that they will find that they will not


serve their selfish interests by betraying the industries with whom their first duty lies. It is with that desire, and with the ultimate authority of this, the ruling body of the Party, that our views on that subject should be made abundantly clear to all concerned, that I beg to move the Motion.
As is always customary in Conservative Party conference reports there then follows, in parentheses, the word "Applause." That speech was received with loud applause at a Conference at which a large number of Members opposite were present, and I suggest it was indicative of the mood. In this House Members opposite pretend to say something which is completely untrue, that is to say, that the Government are guilty of gross patronage in favour of their own supporters. The Conservative Party Conference warned all Conservatives in the country that they should not support nationalised boards—a form of political sabotage to which we are all accustomed.

Mr. Astor: I dissociate myself from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). If the hon. Member opposite cares to read my speech, I think he will find an entirely different mood in my remarks.

Major Bruce: I accept the assurance of the hon. Member; I am pleased to note his repudiation of the poisonous doctrine of the hon, Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
I should like to pass from that if I may. The question of patronage has been discussed in its wrong context. It is assumed that because the Government of the day bring in certain legislation which institutes certain national boards they will automatically give preference to their own supporters. But a large number of other public boards were established before this Government ever came into power. I cannot say that some of the boards that were set up before the war were noted entirely for the complete absence of Conservatives from them, and I do not think that any hon. Member opposite would dare to get up and postulate that situation.
We find that the Conservative Party, being a party representative in the main of large industrialists and of finance, which, of course, they will strenuously deny, have also profited from a source of

patronage. We observe, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington, when his party suffered a reverse at the polls and he was no longer a Cabinet Minister, went again into directorships in finance and industry. He is today a director of the Phoenix Assurance Company, Ltd., Rio Tinto Company, Ltd., and of the Westminster Bank, Ltd. I do not wish in any way to cast any aspersions, either directly or indirectly, upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I, personally, have a very great respect for him and he is very popular in this House, but I have not observed the right hon. Gentleman enlivening our proceedings when they are of a financial or a banking character with any profound observations on his part on these most important subjects.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: So far as I know there is no Ministerial responsibility for the holding of private commercial offices by members of His Majesty's Opposition, and therefore are the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The point raised here is the Government or Ministerial responsibility for appointments, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly entitled to refer to hon. Members who hold other appointments outside Government appointments.

Major Bruce: I can understand the point being a little embarrassing to hon. Members opposite. We come next to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), who also, unfortunately for him, lost his Ministerial office because his party suffered an electoral defeat in the General Election. Finance and industry tend to look after their own, because we find today the right hon. Gentleman is a director of the Alliance Assurance Company Ltd., and the Associated Electrical Industries, Ltd., of which he is chairman. I could go through this list at some length, but I would not wish to bore the House by reading out the extremely long list of appointments which are handed out by way of private patronage by finance and industry to those who support them in this House. Indeed, I am entitled to make that inference, because of some of the completely undocumented assertions


made in this House tonight by the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey.
I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who after some six weeks as First Lord of the Admiralty—and in some quarters he was described as the greatest First Lord of the Admiralty—joined or rejoined the boards of Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, Ltd., the "Financial Times," Ltd., and the "Financial News," Ltd., and "The Economist." Indeed, I could give a recital of names of companies in which Members on the Opposition Front Bench are, in fact, interested. Whereas the Government of the day are responsible to this House for their appointments and matters can be raised in open Debate about them, these are appointments without responsibility, and no Minister need answer for any of the appointments offered by finance and private industry to the now extinct volcanoes opposite.
I submit that no evidence has been brought before this House tonight which gives the slightest shred of justification for the wild campaign that is being pursued not by the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey, but by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames with the calculated object of smearing and besmirching wherever it can touch. I have not the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to answer some of the slanders which have been raised in the country, and which I agree, have only been suggested by the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey this evening. I am quite content that the House and the country will be satisfied in the matter of appointments of a public character, and that it will be seen that a very much higher standard of impartiality and integrity prevails now than ever prevailed before.

9.10 p.m.

Colonel Gonune-Duncan: The rather pathetic speech to which we have just listened contained, I suppose, more red herrings than any other speech which we have had in this Parliament, and that is a pretty high average. Here was the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Mr. Bruce) who did not take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) had said on a matter of principle, but preferred to read into what he said a smear campaign, of which,

after all, certain occupants of his own Front Bench are past masters. The point is not whether A or B is or is not the most suitable person for a job, but that whoever is appointed should be the best, selected upon his fitness and upon nothing else.

Mr. Willis: As they were under the Tories.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) says "as they were under the Tories." I am very glad that hon. Members agreed with that. I do not think that any Government has ever been entirely free from patronage on political grounds. I do not think it would be fair to say otherwise. The thing at the moment is that we have a vastly increased amount of patronage available. Every Bill which is brought forward increases the amount of patronage put into the hands of Ministers who, everyone in this House will agree, have a very heavy responsibility, to say the least of it. The hon. Member for North Portsmouth read out, I presume from the "Directory of Directors," a number of appointments which have been made by industry of certain people who were members of the late Government. Does he really imagine that industry, which depends for its bread and butter upon success, would invite people to join its boards if those people were not going to be of value to them? What is the use of having directors if they are not of value? These directors are not concerned with the taxpayers' money. That is the difference. They are concerned with shareholders' money and their own money.

Mr. Willis: What about the workers? Are they not concerned with the workers?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am talking about the financial effect. I will come to the workers or what the hon. Gentleman calls the workers. Directors are workers just as much as anybody else in industry. The ranks of hon. Gentlemen opposite contain many directors, and highly-paid directors. It is ridiculous to imagine that directors are not workers in industry, because they are. If a company has not efficient directors, then it does not matter how good the rest of the show is, the company will fail.

Mr. John Lewis: It is not true of some of them.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I quite agree, but the fact remains that a company which keeps a lot of "duds" on its board will soon become a "dud" itself, when its competitors will take over. That is not the case with a nationalised industry, because there is nobody to take over, and that is where the danger lies. It is most unfair that when we complain about these things, red herrings about the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) are introduced and those cases are compared with the appointment of somebody to a nationalised board. It is a different thing altogether. My hon. Friend put the matter very fairly. I do not think it is a matter of this or that name. I could mention one or two names if I wanted to, but I want to stick to the principle of the thing. In the hands of Ministers we see an immense amount of power, such as no previous Government have ever had. We must realise that in a Socialist State that kind of thing will go on increasing. The longer we have a Socialist State, which logically and inevitably, ends in a Communist State, we shall have greater and greater degrees of patronage and corruption. That is unmistakable. We can see it in any State which has gone Communist today.
One other point. Do not let us get into personalities one way or another on this matter. What this House wants, and, far more important, what the country wants, is to be crystal clear that if there are nationalised industries—after all, the majority of the country voted against the Socialists; we must remember that—the appointments to the boards which are to run those industries will be made with absolute impartiality. I believe that that has very largely been done, but there have been appointments—that is where we have to think of persons—in the last two years which have led to a grave suspicion in the public mind that all is not well in this matter of appointments.[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] I am not going to mention names. We all know the people we are thinking about. The real misfortune is that that disquiet should rest in the public mind. What we want to be absolutely certain of—I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will take it up on these lines—is that the

people who are appointed are the best for the job.

Major Bruce: Major Bruce rose——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me, I have nearly finished and then he can say what he likes. We want to be certain that the public feel that the boards are entirely impartial. They may be wrong in thinking they are not impartial, but we must get rid of that impression. That is the principle concern.

Mr. Mitchison: Mr. Mitchison (Kettering) rose—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I am concluding. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure the House, as my right hon. Friend asked, in such a way that the whole country will realise the sincerity of what he is saying, that whatever has happened in the past, there will in future be no question of political partiality in any appointment. That should apply to any Government which comes into power when this one goes out very shortly.

Mr. Mitchison: Is there any hope of eliciting from the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether his views about impartiality are the same as those of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) or not?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That red herring will not do its job because we are not going to be besmeared by it. I do not think that what my hon. Friend said several years ago——

Mr. Willis: Last year.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: —two years ago—really makes much difference, although he was honoured by being quoted by the Lord President of the Council so he must have got under somebody's skin. However, that is not apposite to the discussion we are having tonight.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I am amazed at the impertinence of the Opposition in bringing this matter forward. I should have thought that if there was any complaint about appointments made by this Government, it might have come from these benches, because in their endeavour to be impartial, the Government seem to have deferred more to the other side of the House or to our


opponents in the country than, from my point of view at least, is altogether wholesome. We might instance several of the State undertakings. Take transport. There several superannuated gentlemen from the Army have been appointed to high executive positions. One, a distinguished gentleman in his sphere, has recently been liberated to go elsewhere in the Government's service. He has been succeeded by a gentleman, a distinguished general I believe, upon the Transport Board. Right through the hierarchy of the Transport Board, and particularly on the road side, there have been many appointments which many of us on these benches who have spent our whole life in industry cannot understand. We should have thought that if we had wanted to appoint our own people, there would have been no dearth of good able people who might very well have taken up positions.
The Ministry of Health has been inundated by complaints from our own people that people known to be critical and reactionary from our point of view of the National Health Service have—in an impartial way, as the Ministry will argue, and as the Government see the position—been given a place in the administration of the scheme. Similarly of the Coal Board—indeed, of the administration of the colliery industry of this country—we have had virulent and vigorous criticism from miners in South Wales and in the North Country about some of the appointments which pass their understanding. They may not have been speaking with the full knowledge of what the Government or the individual Minister had in mind, but they were certainly very dissatisfied. I suggest that all this was done because the Government were exceedingly careful and wanted to do the right thing along the lines which hon. Members opposite have sought to establish tonight, that is, to put in the best men in an objective way, because they could contribute something to these new undertakings.
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) spoke about the Bank of England and some of the State corporations, and he mentioned in passing some of the Colonial appointments. He said that perhaps we had suffered because we had not enough people trained to fill these appointments. I saw an appointment

mentioned the other day which made me raise my eyebrows. Here is a Labour Government, with all the power in the world to make appointments, appointing a new Governor-General for Ceylon. Did they appoint a discarded Labour politician? Not a bit of it. I do not know anything about the gentleman who has been appointed except that he was the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, an ex-Tory Minister. When we sent Lord Mountbatten to India, as the Viceroy, was that a political appointment? He did an excellent job of work. When Lord Douglas had his high executive position in the Royal Air Force, did the Conservatives then indict him on political grounds? Not a bit of it. He did a great job of work.
While we accept the view that the best man for the job, with character and breadth of outlook, who is likely to fill the position to the best advantage on grounds of public interest should be chosen, the case adumbrated tonight was not on the ground of particular appointments. It was something more. It was an endeavour to denigrate the whole attempt at socialisation, an attempt to condemn this new approach to our economic problems which the Government have taken. To the submissions made tonight I do not think the country will listen with any favour, because no evidence has been adduced that the Government stand culpable in this matter.
If there is any criticism to be made, it is that instead of seeking to pay attention to the training of men who belong to and have some specialised knowledge of the industries, of whatever party or of no party, so that they can rise from the humblest ranks to the highest executive positions, the Government have perforce had to make appointments as best they could and with some inadequacy from several points of view. I hope the Government will take notice that not only from the Conservative benches is there some dissatisfaction over these appointments, but that, from our point of view, we want the men with day to day experience to have opportunities of filling such appointments at some later stage in their careers, without any reference to political implications. If they have not had sufficient training before, there should be some new educational system devised to give it to them.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) made a very sound point when he referred to the difficulties which are facing the future. I am anxious to join in this Debate because I feel the Government have been faced with a very difficult task in making the best possible selection of individuals to serve on the nationalised corporations with which the country is now faced. It could not have been by any means an easy matter to make the right selection in view of the inevitable pressures which must have been exerted in different directions. Whilst some mistakes have been made, in many cases the choice has been the right one. In view of all the circumstances, not a bad average bunch of men has been got together to run these nationalised undertakings.
The real problem, of course, is that the Government have relied so much upon experience accumulated from the past. In every nationalised Bill they have stressed the fact that men of wide business experience would be brought in to run these new undertakings. That was all right to begin with, but where is the next generation of businessmen to come from? They cannot be trained in the old methods, because the old methods are no longer to be permitted. A new generation must be created somehow, and I do not think that the present climate—the present atmosphere within the corporations—is likely to produce the type of superman which is undoubtedly required to run a large nationalised undertaking. That is why I appreciate the difficulties expressed so admirably by the hon. Member for Burslem.
It is not merely a matter of giving men within a nationalised undertaking the opportunity to rise from the bottom to the top. What we must do is to attract into a nationalised undertaking the right man, whom it is worth while getting to the top. At present we have at the top of some of the nationalised undertakings men who have proved themselves by great independent ability, who have acquired business experience but have done so in the very hard school of life, and who have learnt their lessons the hard way. The trouble about nationalised undertakings is that they are comparatively sheltered and are not the best

schools of hard experience for the next generation of industrial leaders. We cannot possibly expect to recruit from within the boards the tough fibre which is essential at the top.
Somehow we must look ahead and try to realise how we can recruit the next generation of leaders of nationalised industry. It will not be an easy task. I do not think it is fair to bleed private industry indefinitely to provide the best men for the nationalised boards; nor is it fair to take the best men away from the Civil Service, to tempt them away by means of much higher salaries than they can get if they remain in the careers to which they originally devoted themselves. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have something to say upon this very real problem, which is now arising, of the best men in the Civil Service being all too often tempted away from their life's career into a nationalised board because of the higher salary and superior perquisites which such an appointment can offer.
I want to refer now to one other nationalised undertaking, which may or may not come about and which will present particularly difficult problems in the recruitment of the members of its board; that is, the nationalised iron and steel industry. It is obvious that if the Bill which is being discussed upstairs——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): As that Bill is being discussed upstairs, the hon. Member would be out of Order in discussing it now before it is reported.

Mr. Erroll: It is not the Bill that I am discussing but the unfortunate plight of the individuals who might be invited to join the board of the Corporation, as indeed they must be, in the course of the next few months.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member will not be in Order if he goes on to discuss a Bill which is before a Standing Committee. That cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Erroll: I must, of course, bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would mention in passing that the problem of recruitment is not merely one of the past but also one of the immediate future, particularly in connection with that industry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I asked the hon. Member to refrain from discussing that industry at the moment. I think that he should do so.

Mr. Mitchison: Try brewing.

Mr. Erroll: That is an industry which might be tried. Hon. Members will doubtless do so later.
The general question of salaries must be taken into account in this field because we are in great danger of attracting to nationalised industries men from other walks of life who should not properly leave their existing jobs in order to go into these corporations. As I was saying, there is the difficulty of the iron and steel industry in which, as I was saying, individuals already engaged in the industry will be under a severe difficulty. Those in the iron and steel industry will be invited to choose——

Mr. J. Lewis: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to an industry the nationalisation of which is now before a Standing Committee of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member may refer to it, but not in relation to the Bill which is before the House.

Mr. Erroll: I was referring to the position of individuals who may be invited to joint the board of an industry which is likely to be nationalised. I am thinking particularly of the iron and steel industry, without of course referring to the Bill. These individuals will be placed in an invidious position because when they receive the invitation to join the board of the Corporation they will be under a twofold difficulty. First, if they refuse the invitation, and the industry is nationalised, they will be on record as being against nationalisation. If on the other hand they agree to join the board, and the industry is not nationalised, they might feel, although quite unnecessarily, that their position is somewhat prejudiced. It is unfortunate that a situation should be arising in which a number of sound and valuable steel executives should be placed in a
position——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is certainly now anticipating matters which require legislation. He is not entitled to do that.

Mr. Erroll: I am sure that hon. Members opposite will appreciate the difficult situation which is created for any individual when he is asked to join the board of a corporation when that corporation may or may not be set up as a result of a General Election which is about to take place. That was the point which I was trying to make with special reference to the iron and steel industry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the iron and steel industry again I shall have to request him to resume his seat.

Mr. Erroll: I have no intention of saying it again. I feel that the point has already been made clear. I wanted to illustrate the difficulties which do exist in this extremely awkward problem of selecting the best men to run the nationalised corporations, both those already formed and those which still lie in the future.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Tiffany: The main purport of this Debate is similar to that of the discussion which has been taking place in the country. Any effort is good enough on the part of the Opposition to try and destroy or to denigrate the nationalised industries. Whether they do it by one means or by another does not matter to the Opposition, so long as they get a good stick wherewith to belabour the nationalised industries. This appears to be a good handle which they might take hold of and one that will appeal to the Tory Press and to people in the countryside as a means to discredit the steps that have been taken by the Government.
I suggest to hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) who introduced this Debate, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), that they might resolve their differences in relation to appointments to nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Eastern Surrey made reference to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and appointments made to the Bank of England. He spoke about some sinister work or some sinister appointments that have been made. The hon. Member for Altrincham suggested that, after all, they were not a bad average as a whole.

Mr. Astor: I did not say "sinister appointments." I was trying to express in a slightly complicated manner what was public opinion in respect to things which were touched or handled too closely by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Mitchison: What does the hon. Member mean by that?

Mr. Astor: It is an interpretation of public opinion. We all have our ideas. If the hon. and learned Member has not the ordinary intelligence to understand what I mean, I cannot help him.

Mr. Mitchiso: I am sorry to be so stupid, but could the hon. Member explain in plain English, for those who are not so super-intelligent as himself, exactly what he means? Because he appeared to be making some kind of dirty insinuation about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is not here, and he might at least be honest and say that that is what he means.

Mr. Astor: I apologise for taking up the time of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) but I should make plain what I was saying in regard to one of these appointments. I was saying that it was felt in responsible quarters that one of the qualifications of the person appointed was a particularly close affiliation with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Whether we consider that or not, that is public opinion as I have had it from people who are in a position to make an intelligent criticism. It is merely a reflection, if one likes, of the measure of respect or disrespect in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is held in responsible financial and commercial circles. I cannot say anything plainer than that. If the hon. and learned Member does not understand that, he will not understand anything.

Mr. Tiffany: I would suggest to the hon. Member that in making his speech he used the word "sinister," and that that word had a very different ring about it from the statement which he has now made. But even on the particular statement which he has made now, surely there is nothing wrong about the position. Because one happens to be aware of the capabilities of a person through a close affiliation with that person, is it to be the

case that even if that person is competent he must not be appointed simply because one knows him or has been in association with him?

Mr. Astor: Of course not.

Mr. Tiffany: That is the argument that has been adduced by the hon. Member opposite. It is an argument that is not acceptable to the people on his own side, as he knows full well.
If we look back through history we find that many appointments of that calibre have been made in the past, and I trust that similar appointments will be made in the future. Where it is well known to the people responsible for making the appointments that the men with whom they are in contact are the best people for the job, then, surely, they should not be debarred from being appointed.

Mr. Astor: I am not saying that one should not appoint one's best friend or closest relation if he happens to be the best person available. Intimacy does not preclude anybody. The hon. Gentleman either did not hear my speech, or he is, unintentionally no doubt, taking certain things out of their context.

Mr. Tiffany: We are getting more and more involved in this particular matter. First of all, we use the word "sinister," then we use the phrase "close affiliation," and now we seem to be wandering even further. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is asking me what the hon. Gentleman meant when he used the word "sinister." I am afraid that I cannot inform him, nor apparently, can the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey himself inform the House. I am afraid it is rather too difficult for him. He has used the word, and he knows the implication that is often hidden behind it. I do not think that he wanted that implication to be attached to it, but now he finds a difficulty in extricating himself from the position in which he has placed himself.
We on this side of the House agree that such an appointment should be on the basis of fitness for the job. While each one of us may have our particular fancy as to the type of people who should be appointed to these nationalised industries, I am convinced that, in the main, the people who have been appointed were obviously fitted for the job. Of course,


there may be an odd exception here and there, but nothing was ever done which was worth while without some mistakes being made. After all, the Members of this Government are only human, and are liable to make mistakes just like anyone else. While I would be one of the first to criticise them when they make mistakes, nevertheless I recognise that we have to show a certain amount of tolerance, and toleration should be granted even by the Opposition on this particular matter.
It has been stated that in the nationalised industries the appointments should be crystal clear. I think that they are more crystal clear in the nationalised industries than they ever were under private enterprise. No ordinary citizen in this country could ever raise the question of any appointment that was made in a colliery or a mine when it was in the hands of private enterprise. That was taboo as far as this House was concerned. But now we have that opportunity. That opportunity is in the hands of Members of this House, in the hands of the representatives of the people, and we can depend on it that when the appointments are made the people making them will bear that fact in mind. I am convinced of this when I look at the people who have already been appointed. I happen to know one or two of them, and I believe they are doing a good job in the offices which they hold. Instead of hon. Members attempting to denigrate the work they are doing, they should praise them for the sacrifices they are making in holding these positions, for the long hours they work and for the fact that many of them never see their homes from one week to another. They are making those sacrifices in order to assist us to make a success of these nationalised industries.
It has been said many times, particularly in the past few years, that the workers were not fit to rule, and that among the working class we had no people with the necessary capabilities. That is disproved by the type of people we have thrown up in the trade union movement, and in the Co-operative movement which is one of the biggest trading organisations in the country. It is proved again by the people who have been appointed on these nationalised Boards. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the only way that they can find to try to destroy these nationalised industries is by attacking

appointments they are on very weak ground indeed.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I will not detain the House long, but I was prompted to get up by the remarks of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). His remarks seem to be based on certain fundamental misconceptions of the whole position. The question which his words stimulated in my mind concerned the nature of the management appointments and administrative appointments in industries that have not yet been nationalised and in industries that have already been nationalised.
Is it the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite that in all industries which are not yet nationalised appointments to boards of directors and to the highest flights of administrative responsibility are given out only to those with the widest experience and the most profound knowledge and skill in the administration of those industries or services? Is it a fact, for instance, that on the boards of the railways before they were nationalised every appointment was made on merit, on ability and on the standard of service that would be rendered to the particular industry or service? Certainly not. Reference has been made to certain instances of even right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench being on the boards of various concerns—private, capitalised financial trusts and all the rest of it.
I am convinced there is a great amount of sheer hypocrisy and insincerity in the whole approach to this question by hon. Gentlemen opposite because they seek to apply to nationalised industries an entirely different standard in regard to appointments on the boards of directors and the boards of management as compared with the standard which they apply in the case of private industries. I do not complain about that because quite frankly I think that the higher the standard we insist upon in the case of nationalised industries, the better it will be for those industries, and the better it will be for the country generally; but it is sheer hyprocrisy to seek to apply that high standard to publicly-owned industries and services and to be content with a much lower standard in those industries before they become publicly-owned. The only conclusion I can draw


from the remarks of hon. Members opposite tonight is that they seek to have a much higher standard insisted upon in the nationalised industries than was experienced in private industry in the years gone by.

Mr. Erroll: The essential difference is that the boards of nationalised undertakings are boards of monopolies, whereas the boards of private undertakings, as outlined by the hon. Member, were boards of competitive undertakings which stood or fell by competition.

Mr. Thomas: If that is the type of result to be expected from the study of economics by the Tory Party we shall not see much progress in their understanding of modern economic problems. The term "monopoly" has been applied to nationalised industries. Are there not monopolies in private industry? Are there not monopolies in almost every great field of industry and service in this country at the present time? Are there not interlocking directorships? Do we not find the same names repeated on the boards of management of two, three or even a dozen concerns, without any proof that the individuals appointed to a multiplicity of concerns have any special experience in the services those concerns are supposed to render or the business they carry on? In almost every case the only test is the size of the financial holding that those individuals have in the concerns.
The test applied by the present Government when appointing members to the boards of nationalised industries is not the financial holding of the men concerned in the nationalised undertaking, because the financial holding has already been transferred out of private hands into the hands of the State. The only test that remains to be applied is that of talent, experience, and ability to fill the post. I contend that is the test which is being applied, and which will continue to be applied, by the Government.
There is another phase of this problem which has apparently been entirely ignored by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale referred to civil servants and public servants, and the danger of the best brains being left out. What has been the history of the training of that great fund of experience and ability in our public

services? Over the last 100 years or so men have been cradled and trained in those services until we have in them probably some of the finest administrative brains in the world. The same thing will happen in the great industries now being nationalised. It will not be necessary to go outside the ranks within those industries to find the men who can give the best service. Those men will be trained inside the industries and services themselves, and there will be opportunities which could never have been given had those industries and services remained in private hands, because hitherto the test for appointment to directorates has not been service in the ranks and working up from the bottom to the top, of the industry, but the bringing in of the man with the cash bags, the man of a particular social status to give a kind of romantic flavour to the board of directors, and the longer the title the more successful the director from that point of view
All this is now being shown up for the bunkum it is. It is now being realised that in a healthy and progressive industry brains and talent are necessary for its efficient running. Every opportunity will be given and must be given for men and women working in industry to reach the top flights of administration, and I hope that this Debate will clear up the cobwebs in the minds of Members opposite, as well as revealing the bankruptcy of their understanding of this modern development.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Blackburn.

Mr. Austin: On a point of Order. With the greatest respect and without any animus towards the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), may I point out that the hon. Member has been in the House for only half an hour and that I have sat throughout this Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not allowed to question the Chair in that fashion. In point of fact, he did not rise on the last occasion when there was an opportunity for him to do so.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: It seems to me that this is a subject of fundamental importance. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) who initiated the Debate is entitled to be


admired, because he came out in the open with things that are being whispered in private; because he has been prepared to come to this House and say what we know perfectly well is being whispered all over the country. I think that he is only too willing to face the consequences of the case he has made out. I do not think anyone on this side has ever suggested that we should have what might be described as political appointments. We have always suggested that appointments to these boards should be on grounds of ability and fitness to serve in the capacity elected. But can it possibly be denied that it is of vital importance in every nationalised industry, or in the case of the Bank of England, to have at least one member of the trade union movement? Surely that is a fact which all should accept as axiomatic, because, after all, it is admitted everywhere one goes in the world, not least in the United States, that this country has the best trade union movement.
Let us go a stage further. The party opposite, in their Industrial Charter, accept or pay lip-service to equality of opportunity and to the participation of workers in management. Is it now being suggested that the Labour Government are to be censured for putting on the boards of nationalised industries people who would not otherwise be in control of those industries? Is it to be suggested that the only people who ought to be put on these boards are those who would be there anyway, under private enterprise? It is very difficult to understand exactly the claim we have heard tonight. For instance, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) put forward a case which he knows perfectly well to be quite wrong. He was suggesting that nationalised industries, because of the large salaries being paid, are going to attract people from private enterprise.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well, through our co-operation of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, that the trouble is that salaries in nationalised industries are

not large enough to attract people who ought to come from private industry. The whole case, if it had to be put on an Opposition point of view, is exactly the opposite of what we have heard tonight. The fact is that people are staying in private industry, particularly in scientific grades, who really ought to come into nationalised industries.

Mr. Erroll: Is the hon. Member advocating larger salaries for members of the boards as distinct from the executive grades below scientific grades?

Mr. Blackburn: I am not advocating anything at all tonight; I understood the hon. Gentleman was trying to advocate something, but if he wishes to withdraw it I am prepared to accept his withdrawal. I am trying to make clear, first, that there ought to be no political appointments; second, that there ought to be on every board one trade union representative; third, that if we believe in equality of opportunity we ought to be on the look out for those people who have tremendous ability but who have never had the chance to show that ability in private industry.
I hope Members opposite will not think me facetious if I tell them of an experience of mine. I used to play for my House 2nd XV—though I always thought I was a lot better than that. When, finally, I was pushed forward into the 1st XV against the 2nd XV I was rather overwhelmed, but on the second, third and fourth occasions I managed just about as well as anybody else. I am being modest. What applies to games applies equally to industry.

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom'd caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air."

We have seen many flowers blushing unseen in private industry. We ought to give them a chance in nationalised industry. In a large number of cases we are trying to do this, but I agree with what my predecessors on this side have said tonight, that we are not doing it in anything like a sufficiently large number of cases. The Government ought to appoint more people with a trade union background. If I give an illustration I hope it will not be taken amiss. I have a great admiration for Lord Hyndley,


who, I think, did a good job on the Coal Board, but I cannot help remembering that at a Blackpool Conference the present Minister of Health said that he was a man who specialised, between the two wars, in making one blade of grass grow where two grew before. It is most important that in these nationalised industries we should have a clean break with the past, though that does not mean that we should not use everyone with ability whom we can get from private industry. We ought to give scientists a fairer share of responsibility than they have had in the past. It means that we must bring in people in whom the workers will have confidence.
I do not accept the view that there has been a black sheep of any kind. I will not accept the view that the appointments of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have been very bad appointments; I think they have been very good. Under private enterprise there is a large number of black sheep. I remember the case of Lord Kylsant. I was appointed, at the age of 21, to be the sole representative of the ordinary share capital of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which amounted to £6 million. I am still that representative. It was proposed to prosecute Lord Kylsant in 1928, but he was saved by the then Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who said he should not be prosecuted. Later Lord Kylsant suffered the penalty—I have nothing at all to say against him—of being declared by 12 good men and true to be a crook. Hon. Members opposite should remember the tremendous importance of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and the immense repercussions in the company through having somebody who was declared a crook. Nobody has ever suggested that about anyone in the nationalised industry.
Therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to recognise that they are dwelling in a certain kind of glass house, even if it is not the kind of glass house they thought we would introduce at the time of the General Election. They ought to be careful indeed when introducing a subject of this kind in the House of Commons, as the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey has had the courage, although I would not say the wisdom, to do.

10.6 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): This Debate arose out of a Question put by the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey (Mr. Astor) to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about a month ago. The House will realise that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to be in his place tonight to answer this Debate; it is equally impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be taking my place at this Box, because he is not in the country. Therefore, it has fallen to me to reply to what has been said tonight.
I have found the superior tone of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite somewhat nauseating, because if there is any party in this House whose hands are dripping with the spoils of patronage, both public and private, it is the party opposite. In the past it has not been so much "jobs for the boys," though there have been plenty of those, as jobs for sons, for uncles, for cousins and for anybody they felt needed helping. The paucity of representation on the benches opposite is an indication that the hon. Gentleman's friends had more sense than to come here to take part in this Debate tonight. Because of things that have been said, because of taunts flung across the Floor of the House at Question time, and because of the country-wide whispering campaign referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), it is essential that this matter should be put into its proper perspective. I shall try to do this in the time at my disposal.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I deeply regret the references made by the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I think that the hon. Member will himself regret them, on reflection. I do not know whether he informed my right hon. Friend that he intended to speak about him tonight; but, if he did not, it would have been a little fairer of him to indicate that he proposed to drag my right hon. Friend into this Debate, which has nothing whatever to do with him and is of an entirely different character. I know that there is a whispering campaign about my right hon. Friend; it is completely misplaced and entirely unfair. The


appointments that he made will stand up to the appointments made by any other Government, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has more than once indicated that the policy of my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the policy he is following now.
First let me deal with appointments to the Court of Directors of the Bank of England. Under Section 2 (2) of the Bank of England Act, the Governor and members of the court are appointed by the Crown. That means that His Majesty, with the advice of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, makes the appointments to the Court. This method was debated when the Bill was passing through all its stages in this Chamber, and it was adopted with the approval of the Governor and other Directors of the Bank of England at that time. Let me quote one part of the speech made by the present Chancellor of the Duchy, when he was speaking on the Second Reading of that Bill. He was speaking about the appointment of members of the Court, and he said:
I wish to make it clear that it is not intended that there should be representation of any sectional interest whatever on the Court. No one will be entitled to say: "I speak on behalf of this, that or the other section of the community.' We shall advise His Majesty to place upon the Court persons of suitable and varied—I emphasise ' varied'—ability and knowledge, and we shall seek in particular so to compose the court as adequately to reflect industrial as well as financial experience."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1945; Vol. 415. c. 51.]
If hon. Members will look with unbiased minds down the list of appointments that have been made, they will see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, have followed that policy to the letter.
What about other public boards? The principle of Ministerial appointment, or appointment by the Crown on the advice of Ministers, was well established before the war. This policy, which is at present set out in a certain Bill now before a Committee upstairs, has been followed in the case of quite a number of nationalised or analogous Boards set up by previous Governments. There were: the Electricity Commission, set up in 1920; the Central Electricity Board, in 1927; the B.B.C., in 1927; the Coal Commission, in 1938; and the B.O.A.C., in 1939. Then there

was the North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board. All those bodies were set up before this Government came into office, and many of them before the war. The same principle is embodied in the nationalisation Measures which have been passed through this House as were embodied in those other Measures passed by Governments of a complexion which, as far as I know, was quite acceptable to the hon. Members opposite who have spoken in this Debate.
What is the justification for this method of appointing members to the various nationalised boards? It is that the Minister is responsible to this House and that, if any other body were responsible for appointing members of the boards, it would be open to any Minister to come to the House and say: "I know they have made a mess of it, but, please, 1 did not appoint them." Therefore, it seems to me, to the Government and to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, to be plain common sense that the appointments to these boards should be made by the Minister responsible.
In the case of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act the following provision was made. I give it in full, because it indicates to the House how these appointments should be made and the kind of qualification which the Minister concerned has to bear in mind when he makes them. It was laid down that:
Persons appearing to him"—
to the Minister—
to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, industrial, commercial, or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of the workers
should be appointed. That leaves it to the Minister, within certain broad limits, to choose his men, and the best men, for the appointment which has to be made. That formula was used in the Electricity Act, the Gas Act and the Transport Act, and in a certain Bill which is passing very comfortably through its Committee stage upstairs.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to say that no one would be appointed because he was in favour of nationalisation. Surely that is an absurd request to make? If a man is the best man for the job, the fact that he is in favour of nationalisation is an additional reason why he should be appointed.

Mr. Astor: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I was quoting what the Secretary of State for War said when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, that he could not be agreeable to appointing anybody to a nationalised board if he was opposed to nationalisation. That is different. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree or not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position is as I have stated it. When the Minister comes to make an appointment, whether it is the Minister of Fuel and Power or whoever the Minister may be, he has to look at the provisions of the Act which lays down the kind of qualifications which he has to seek in any individual and, of course, he has to bear in mind the kind of post he wants to fill. It may be that he wants a scientist to fill a certain place on a given board, and he therefore looks for that type of man. If the man he thinks is best for the job is also sympathetic to the work he is going to do, I think it is an added qualification and one which the Minister should not ignore. If we accept the principle which the hon. Member for Eastern Surrey is now stating, it would mean that we should have to choose a pacifist to be chief of the Royal Air Force on the grounds that his being interested in the Royal Air Force and keen on it was one reason why he should not be appointed.

Mr. Astor: It is not quite like that. I am asking the Financial Secretary whether he agrees or not with the Secretary of State for War when he said that he would not appoint to a nationalised board anyone who was opposed to nationalisation. Is the answer "yes" or "no"?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not a bit of it. I hope I can now get into the head of the hon. Gentleman that the Minister concerned has not got to run to the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War has expressed a view, and there is a good deal to be said for it, but what the Minister responsible has to do is to follow the Act on the Statute Book. If he finds those qualities, as no doubt he very often will, because people who believe in nationalisation are usually intelligent in other directions too, he will find that he is not only complying with what the Statute lays down, but is also complying with the expressed opinion of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Astor: I gather than the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me that opposition to nationalisation would not preclude appointment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It has not up to now, although I should imagine that active opposition to nationalisation on the part of any individual would be sufficient to make him refuse the job if it were offered him.

Mr. Erroll: But nobody who opposed nationalisation would ever be offered a job however good he was.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not want to bandy names about the House, but if the hon. Member examines the names of those on some of these boards, he will gather from their records that what he has just said is sheer nonsense. The method laid down and being followed is reasonable, not only because it means that the Minister who has made the appointment is responsible to this House, which we all desire, but also because he knows better where to look for individuals at any given moment to fill a chosen post.
The suggestion that some sort of advisory committee should be set up or that there should be appointing trustees, as laid down in the London Passenger Transport Board Bill has not worked out well in practice. It is true that, in the L.P.T.B. Measure, which began as a Socialist Measure and was taken over from my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House by the National Government which followed, the appointment of members to the board through the agency of appointing trustees was provided for by an Amendment moved during the Committee stage of the Bill. So far as my recollection goes, and from what I have heard from the Lord President who followed its course closely, that Amendment was put in because the Conservative Party, in its innocence at that time, thought that by moving the Amendment and making the appointments to the board not through the Minister but once removed through trustees, they were taking all the Socialism out of the Measure.
Actually, although the Members of the Board were appointed in that way, even the Conservatives found that the method


did not work. For, when they came to appoint the Coal Commission, B.O.A.C. and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, they departed from the suggestion that trustees should appoint directors to the board and went back to the procedure which we have followed since we came into office in 1945. Therefore, in this case and for once in a way, we are following the practice of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we find it is the best way. They departed from that practice only once, they found it was a mistake, and they dropped it like a hot brick when they wanted to make appointments to the next new board that was set up.
In any case it is essential that this House should keep control. Over and over again from the benches opposite since nationalisation Measures have been passed through this House, we have had complaints that hon. Members were not able to make all the criticisms they wanted to make of what was going on. The only alternative to the procedure laid down is to go back to something of that sort that occurred when the L.P.T.B. was set up. We think that wrong, and we are positive that, on reflection, hon. Members will not desire it.
With regard to the personal side of these appointments, I look forward to the

time when, as these nationalised industries gradually go forward, they will train their own men who rise from the bottom to the top. We are now passing through a period of transition. Whilst for a long time it may be necessary to bring in people from the outside who have special capability and aptitude for such jobs, I for one hope that, as the years go on, the nationalised boards will more and more be able to train up their own personnel to take the jobs at the top.
I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be sorry that he raised this question. But I am glad that he has done so, because it has given me an opportunity on behalf of the Government to try to allay some of the suspicions——

Major Bruce: Which the Opposition fostered.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: —fostered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is nothing whatever in them. In our view the method adopted is the best method and one that does, and will, work well.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Ten o'Clock.